Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Crosby Litherland and Waterloo Joint Cemetery District) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Wirral Joint Hospital District) Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

AIRE AND CALDER NAVIGATION BILL,

"to extend the time for the completion of certain works authorised by the Acts relating to the undertakers of the Aire and Calder Navigation; to increase the borrowing powers of the undertakers; to authorise a further payment by the Humber Conservancy Board towards the cost of constructing certain training walls; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

BRIGHTON, HOVE, AND WORTHING GAS BILL,

"to prohibit the making by housing authorities of conditions as to the form of light, heat, power, or energy to be supplied or used in certain cases in the limits of supply of the Brighton, Hove, and Worthing Gas Company; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

CARDIFF CORPORATION BILL,

"to empower the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of the city of Cardiff to acquire and develop certain lands, and to provide trolley vehicle services in the city; to confer upon them further powers with reference to their water undertaking; to make further provision for the health and good government, and with regard to the finance of the city;
and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

CHAILEY RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL,

"to confer powers on the Chailey Rural District Council with reference to the construction of waterworks and the supply of water; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

CHURCH HOUSE (WESTMINSTER) BILL,

"to confirm and to enable effect to be given to an agreement for exchanging and otherwise dealing with certain properties in Dean's Yard, Westminster, for the purpose of enlarging and rebuilding the Church House; and for purposes connected therewith," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

CORBY (NORTHANTS) AND DISTRICT WATER BILL,

"to extend the periods limited by the Corby (Northants) and District Water Act, 1931, for the construction of works and the acquisition of lands; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

DARLINGTON CORPORATION BILL,

"to extend the boundaries of the county borough of Darlington; to confer further powers upon the Corporation of Darlington with regard to their gas and water undertakings; to make better provision for the health, local government, and finance of the borough; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

EAST WORCESTERSHIRE WATER BILL,

"to empower the East Worcestershire Waterworks Company to extend their limits for the supply of water; to authorise them to raise further capital;
to confer additional powers upon the Company; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL,

"to confer further powers upon the London County Council and other authorities; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL,

"to empower the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company to construct a railway and to acquire lands; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BOARD BILL,

"to empower the London Passenger Transport Board to provide certain services of trolley vehicles; to work certain tramways by electrical power on the overhead system; to construct new works and to acquire lands; to revive the powers and extend the time for the compulsory purchase of certain lands and the completion of certain works and to extend the time for the compulsory purchase of certain other lands and the completion of certain other workers; to confer further powers on the Board; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

MAIDSTONE WATERWORKS BILL,

"to extend the limits of supply of the Maidstone Waterworks Company; to consolidate with amendments the provisions of the Maidstone Water Acts and Order, 1860 to 1927, relating to the capital and borrowing powers of the Company; to authorise the Company to construct new works and to raise additional money; to confer further powers upon the Company; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

MANCHESTER CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) BILL,

"to empower the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of the city of Manchester to construct street improvements and waterworks; to make further provision in reference to their several undertakings; the granting of superannuation allowances; and the health, local government, and improvement of the city; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

MANCHESTER EXTENSION BILL,

"to extend the boundaries of the city of Manchester; and for purposes incidental thereto," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

SOUTHERN RAILWAY BILL,

"to empower the Southern Railway Company to construct works and acquire lands; to extend the time for the compulsory purchase of certain lands; to confer further powers upon the West London Extension Railway Company; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS (No. 1) BILL,

"to prohibit the making by housing authorities of conditions as to the form of light, heat, power, or energy to be supplied or used in certain cases in the limits of supply of the South Metropolitan Gas Company; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS (No. 2) BILL,

"to amend the enactments relating to prepayment meters of the South Metropolitan Gas Company; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

SOUTH WEST SUBURBAN WATER BILL,

"to authorise the South West Suburban Water Company to construct new works; to take additional water from the River Thames and to raise additional capital; to confer further powers upon the Company; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

STOCKPORT CORPORATION BILL,

"to empower the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the county borough of Stockport to construct additional waterworks; to confer further powers in connection with their water, gas, and electricity undertakings, and in regard to the finance and local government of the borough; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

STOCKPORT EXTENSION BILL,

"to extend the boundaries of the county borough of Stockport; and for purposes incidental thereto," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

TAUNTON CORPORATION BILL,

"to empower the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Taunton and the Central Electricity Board to enter into certain agreements with regard to the supply of electricity by the Corporation to that Board and by that Board to the Corporation on certain conditions; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

WALTHAMSTOW CORPORATION BILL,

"to empower the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Walthamstow to acquire lands in the borough; to extinguish certain reputed lammas rights in or over such lands; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

WESTON-SUPER-MARE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL,

"to empower the urban district council of Weston-super-Mare to construct waterworks and execute street improvements, and to acquire lands for those and other purposes; to confer upon them further powers with respect to their water undertaking; to make further provision for the improvement, health, good government, and finance of their district; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISARMAMENT.

Mr. MANDER: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the proposals brought before the Air Committee of the Disarmament Conference in the early part of 1933 for an international aerial police force are still before the Disarmament Conference; and when they were last considered?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): Proposals for an international police force formed part of an amendment submitted by the representative of Spain to the air chapter of the United Kingdom Draft Convention; this amendment, in common with a number of others to various articles of the Draft Convention, is still before the Conference. In reply to the second part of the question, the last occasion on which proposals for an international air police force were specifically under discussion was the 7th March, 1933, at the eighth meeting of the Special Air Committee.

Mr. ATTLEE (by Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will inform the House when the Government's Memorandum on Disarmament will be published?

Sir J. SIMON: Yes, Sir. The Memorandum on Disarmament will be available for Members in the Vote Office between 6 and 7 o'clock this evening and thus appear in to-morrow morning's newspapers.

Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Leader of the House whether the House will have an opportunity of discussing the Memorandum?

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put that question after he has seen the White Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRIA.

Mr. MANDER: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what concessions have been made by the principal European members of the League of Nations to Austria during the last few months, with a view to assisting to maintain her political and economic independence?

Sir J. SIMON: I cannot give complete information as regards other countries, but so far as matters directly involving this country are concerned the principal European members of the League, including His Majesty's Government, agreed at the Stresa Conference to waive most-favoured-nation rights in respect of any agreements concluded between Austria and other Danubian States, and also to waive their most-favoured-nation rights in respect of any agreement concluded by Austria with any other State which grants tariff preferences to Austrian agricultural products, without Austria having to give any counter preferences in return. The hon. Member will recollect that His Majesty's Government, with the approval of Parliament, participated in guaranteeing an international loan to the Austrian Government.

Mr. MANDER: Have the British Government, as a matter of fact, made specific concessions with regard to particular articles?

Sir J. SIMON: I think my answer covers that point, but the matter is obviously one for negotiation.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: May we be assured that no concessions will be given which will in any way hurt British trade?

Oral Answers to Questions — CITY OF RIGA LOAN.

Mr. SMITHERS: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in
view of the fact that the city of Riga has been in default in interest amounting to some £865,000 since 1917 on the service of the 4½ per cent. 1914 sterling loan, he will take the opportunity, during the trade agreement negotiations, to call the attention of the Latvian Government to this default and ask them to bring pressure to bear on the city of Riga to meet their obligations?

Sir J. SIMON: Yes, Sir. A suitable opportunity having occurred, the attention of the Latvian Government has been drawn to this matter, and they are being urged to take action to facilitate a settlement of the case.

Mr. SMITHERS: Will the right hon. Gentleman refuse to enter into any trade negotiations until the obligations are met?

Sir J. SIMON: The hon. Member will recall the reply to an earlier question he put, when I pointed out that our negotiations are really with the State of Latvia in connection with trade. This is not a State loan, but none the less we have found an opportunity of using such pressure as we can in the matter.

Mr. HANNON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that this loan has been the subject of negotiations for several years past—I think for 10 or 11 years—and surely it is time that it was disposed of once and for all?

Sir J. SIMON: Anything that has gone on for 10 or 11 years cannot always be disposed of at once.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

CHINA.

Mr. NUNN: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the note sent to His Majesty's Legation at Pekin from the Chinese Government requesting the revision of our commercial agreement with China contains any indication of the direction in which alterations are required?

Sir J. SIMON: I am still awaiting the text of the note from the Chinese Government, but, so far as I am aware, it contains no indication of the kind suggested by my hon. Friend.

CEYLON (BRITISH TEXTILE IMPORTS).

Major PROCTER: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has any further information regarding the position of British cotton textile imports into Ceylon; what representations have been made to the Ceylon Government; and what steps he proposes to take to secure for British traders fair conditions of entry into our Colonial markets?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): I am replying on behalf of my right hon. Friend. There has been no further development in the position. The Ceylon State Council are fully aware of the views of His Majesty's Government in the matter and no suitable opportunity will be lost of impressing upon them the importance attached to the matter. I am afraid that the last part of the quesion raises issues too wide to be dealt with in the course of a reply to a question.

Major PROCTER: Has not the time come when we should reconsider the constitutional position of Ceylon?

Mr. MacDONALD: That is another matter altogether, which I think it is not proper to discuss in answer to a question.

COTTON INDUSTRY (JAPANESE COMPETITION).

Mr. CHORLTON: 38.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he intends to take pending the completion of the trade negotiations between Lancashire and Japan to assist the cotton trade?

Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I hope that these negotiations will be brought to a speedy and successful conclusion, and that the question of action by the Government will therefore not arise.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: May we take it that there is nothing in that answer which contradicts the final responsibility of the Government for dealing with these matters, and that there is no suggestion that the responsibility lies with the trade organisation?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Yes, Sir.

Mr. LEVY: Is silk being included in these negotiations?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Yes, Sir—artificial silk. Rayon is being included, but not real silk.

Mr. LEVY: May I ask why real silk is being left out when artificial silk is included?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: It is not possible by question and answer to go into all the details, but it has been explained that the interests of the cotton and rayon trades are being negotiated, and it was thought wise to begin with these first.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Is it the case that the Import Duties Advisory Committee, at the request of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, suspended their investigation into the silk question pending the negotiations with Japan?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Yes, Sir.

FRANCE (BRITISH GOODS: SURTAX).

Sir PERCY HARRIS (for Mr. GRAHAM WHITE): 36.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is now in a position to make a statement with regard to the negotiations with the French Government in regard to the surtax of 15 per cent. on imports of British goods?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, the 15 per cent. surtax on British goods imported into France was suppressed as from the 1st January.

MANCHUKUO.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any British consular representatives have now been appointed to the Manchukuo Government; and whether it is intended to give full recognition to the Manchukuo Government?

Sir J. SIMON: British consular representatives continue to be stationed, as they have been for many years past, at Harbin, Mukden and Newchwang. During the last two and a half years they have maintained such relations with the appropriate local authorities as appeared to be necessitated by British interests. No question of recognition by His Majesty's Government of the existing regime in Manchuria has been involved in these relations. As regards the second part of the question, the position continues to be
governed by the resolution taken by the Assembly of the League of Nations on the 24th February, 1933, under which members of the League undertook not to recognise the existing regime in Manchukuo.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "NELSON" (GROUNDING).

Mr. VYVYAN ADAMS: 8.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has any statement to make with regard to the grounding of His Majesty's Ship "Nelson"?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): As the report of the Court of Inquiry has not yet been considered by the Board, I regret that I am not yet in a position to make a statement in regard to the grounding. After the grounding, the ship was detained by a succession of very strong westerly winds. I should explain that Portsmouth harbour is not a base but a repair port. Ships do not go up Portsmouth harbour if likely to be urgently required for sea. Spithead is, and always has been, the base anchorage on that part of the coast.

Mr. ADAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman in any event ask the captain to steer this extremely expensive craft a little more carefully?

HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw! Shame!

Commander MARSDEN: Was not the pilot in charge of the ship?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: There was a pilot on board.

Mr. HANNON: Is it not a fact—it would, I hope, be ascertained by the inquiry, but is it not a fact that this is a most experienced and capable officer, one of the most experienced in His Majesty's service?

Mr. PERKINS: Who is responsible for navigating a ship of this nature out of Portsmouth, the pilot or the captain?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: The captain is always responsible for the safety of the ship, whether there is a pilot on board or not.

Commander MARSDEN: 11.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if his attention has been drawn to an aerial photograph of the recent grounding of His Majesty's Ship "Nelson," published in the "Daily Herald" of 13th January; and whether, as the grounding was apparently within the prohibited area of the port, permission was given for the photograph to be taken?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: I have seen the photograph to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers. Permission was not obtained for taking this photograph, and the matter is receiving my attention.

Commander MARSDEN: May I ask whether permission was refused?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: Permission was not asked by this particular paper. It was asked by another paper.

OIL ENGINES ("DEUTSCHLAND").

Commander MARSDEN: 9.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he has any information as to whether the oil engines and gearing of the German battleship "Deutschland" have proved a success as compared with propulsion by steam turbines?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: No information has yet been received as to the result of the trials.

SINGAPORE BASE.

Mr. LAMBERT: 10.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will communicate any new decisions that have been arrived at for the defence of the naval base at Singapore?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: The defences of the base at Singapore are primarily a matter for the War Office. As far as the Admiralty are responsible, such decisions as have recently been made refer only to the normal defences of a naval base. The provision of these defences is proceeding concurrently with the progress of the work on the base.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

CHURCH OF THE HOLY SEPULCHRE, JERUSALEM.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state whether his attention has
been called to the fact that it will cost £75,000 to put the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem, into good repair; whether this work is to be carried out; and, if so, whether the expense will be entirely borne by the Government of Palestine?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: I am replying on behalf of my right hon. Friend. By agreement with the ecclesiastical authorities concerned, the Government of Palestine has arranged for an expert survey of the fabric of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Preliminary reports indicate that the building is in a dangerous condition and that extensive repairs will be required, but no estimate of the total cost has yet been received by my right hon. Friend. If these repairs are carried out, the question of the provision of funds will be a matter for discussion with the ecclesiastical authorities. Certain immediate works of consolidation which are urgently necessary are already being carried out and the cost will be defrayed in the first instance by the Government of Palestine.

SITUATION.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any statement to make on the position in Palestine?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: No, Sir. There are no developments which I need report to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION.

CUSTOMS CLEARANCE.

Mr. ALBERY: 19 and 20.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air (1) if he can now state what customs facilities are available at the Gravesend aerodrome;
(2) what aerodromes in this country have full customs facilities for the clearance of aircraft; and what aerodromes or airports have only limited facilities?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): Facilities for customs clearance of aeroplane traffic are now available at 16 aerodromes in the United Kingdom, though at six of these they are confined to the clearance of passengers and their
baggage. Gravesend aerodrome has been added to the list, for both passengers and goods. I am sending my hon. Friend a detailed list. This will show the cases in which prior notice is necessary.

OIL ENGINES.

Mr. CHORLTON: 21.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air to what extent engines using oil fuel on the score of increased safety from fire have been adopted for aircraft in foreign countries; and will he endeavour to secure similar progress in this country?

Sir P. SASSOON: It is understood that heavy oil aero-engines are fitted in three German aircraft in regular operation, but, so far as I am aware, the development of this type of engine has elsewhere not passed beyond the experimental stage. As I informed my hon. Friend in December, developments are being actively pursued in this country.

Mr. CHORLTON: As my hon. Friend knows the importance of safety, will he not accelerate the progress of the development of this type of engine, in view of the terrible catastrophes that have taken place?

Sir P. SASSOON: We are doing so. Nobody knows better than my hon. Friend the difficulties that we have to overcome.

LUBRICATING OIL.

Mr. PERKINS (for Sir PHILIP DAWSON): 22.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air; in view of the fact that oil satisfactory for lubricating purposes in connection with aircraft cannot be produced either from the oil supplied by the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, or from any oil emanating from or produced in any part of the British Empire, if he will state what steps are being taken by the Royal Air Force or by the Department of Industrial Research to remedy this position?

Sir P. SASSOON: The Department has put in hand an investigation of the types of oil available from oilfields within the Empire or under British control to see whether a source of Imperial supply at reasonable prices cannot be developed. Research work bearing on the problem is also in progress at the Fuel Research Station of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.

AIR POWER.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 23.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the total number of first-line aeroplanes at present in Great Britain and available for home defence; and what is the total number of similar machines in France?

Sir P. SASSOON: The present number of first-line aircraft in this country, excluding those allotted for embarkation with the Fleet and the second-line aircraft of the Auxiliary Air Force, is approximately 420. The corresponding number in France, according to the latest available published information, is 1,210.

Sir W. DAVISON: Are any steps being taken by the Government to remove this great inferiority in the air?

Mr. ATTLEE: Is it not the fact that this country and France are bound to render each other support against an aggressor?

Sir P. SASSOON: I do not think I can answer those questions.

Sir W. DAVISON: With respect to the very small number of 420 first-line aircraft, are they all now in this country? That is the question on the Paper, and the hon. Gentleman did not answer it.

Sir P. SASSOON: Yes, Sir.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Does the Under-Secretary consider that 420 first-line aircraft are sufficient for this country?

Sir P. SASSOON: I do not think that I can answer that question now.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 24.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether the 42 squadrons of aeroplanes now possessed by this country are kept fully equipped and ready; and whether it is proposed in the coming Estimates to increase the minimum establishment to 52 squadrons, in view of the extension of the air programmes of other nations?

Sir P. SASSOON: The figures quoted by my hon. Friend relate, of course, to the strength of the Home Defence Force and not to the Royal Air Force as a whole. Of the 42 squadrons, 13 are non-regular. The 29 regular squadrons are fully equipped and ready, with the exception of two, which are in course of reorganisation and re-equipment. As re-
gards the last part of the question, I cannot at this stage anticipate Air Estimates for 1934.

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Soviet Air Force, which 10 years ago was negligible, now ranks second in the world, and is over 60 per cent. stronger than the Royal Air Force; that the Soviet Government has announced its determination to attain first place in the near future, and that priority is accordingly being given to the Russian aircraft industry by government decree in respect of technicians, labour and raw materials; and whether His Majesty's Government will take due account of this and other foreign air programmes in considering Air Estimates for 1934?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the third part, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston-upon-Hull (Brigadier-General Nation) on the 29th instant.

Captain BALFOUR: Can the Prime Minister give any sort of indication as to the time which His Majesty's Government will allow to elapse before they consider it necessary to take steps to achieve parity?

The PRIME MINISTER: These matters are all in a state of negotiation at the present moment.

Captain BALFOUR: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that His Majesty's Governments in Australia, South Africa and New Zealand have all decided to strengthen their air defences in the coming year and are providing substantial credits for the purchase of additional aircraft; and whether, in the light of their action and of our weakness in the air, His Majesty's Government will consider what contribution the United Kingdom should now make to placing joint Imperial air defence upon a secure basis?

The PRIME MINISTER: My attention has been called to reports of public statements by Ministers in the Commonwealth of Australia, New Zealand and the Union
of South Africa to which my hon. and gallant Friend no doubt refers in the first part of his question. As regards the second part, His Majesty's Government are, of course, considering these together with all other relevant factors, in determining the provision which should be made for the Royal Air Force in 1934.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

WATERLOO BRIDGE.

Mr. McENTEE: 25.
asked the Minister of Transport what is the present position regarding Waterloo Bridge?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I understand that the London County Council will very shortly invite tenders for the reconditioning and widening of this bridge.

Mr. McENTEE: Will the Minister tell the House just what he means by "very shortly," because the matter has been going on for a long time?

Mr. STANLEY: I can give no ampler meaning of "very shortly" than that it will be in a very short time.

LOWER THAMES TUNNEL.

Mr. ALBERY: 26.
asked the Minister of Transport if he can state the present position as regards the construction of a Lower Thames tunnel?

Mr. STANLEY: The Parliamentary powers conferred upon the county councils of Essex and Kent for the construction of this tunnel have some six years to run, and measures have been taken to safeguard the line of the tunnel and its approaches. Various aspects of the matter were discussed between representatives of the two county councils and myself at a conference last month.

Mr. ALBERY: Has the attention of the hon. Gentleman been drawn to the periodical congestion of Blackwall Tunnel and Woolwich Ferry and has he taken account of the point that the congestion is likely to increase and that the matter becomes yearly more urgent?

Mr. STANLEY: We are bearing all those matters in mind.

MENAI SUSPENSION BRIDGE.

Major OWEN: 28.
asked the Minister of Transport the annual revenue derived
from the Menai Suspension Bridge tolls; and what has been the annual cost of maintenance for each year since the Ministry of Transport has taken over the bridge?

Mr. STANLEY: As the answer consists chiefly of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Major OWEN: Is there no hope of a reduction in the tolls, owing to the inconvenience caused to industrial and passenger traffic?

Mr. STANLEY: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put that question down.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: Can the Minister say why the constituency of the hon. and gallant Gentleman should be subject to a tariff of this kind?

Mr. STANLEY: That may be the reason.

Following is the answer:

Until 31st March, 1926, the revenue derived from the lease of the Menai Bridge tolls only slightly exceeded the disbursements. The sums realised by the direct collection of tolls after that date and the annual expenditure (including the cost of collection of tolls) were as follows:

Year.
…
…
Receipts.
Payments.





£
£


1926–27
…
…
12,335
3,650


1927–28
…
…
13,058
3,288


1928–29
…
…
13,010
3,376


1929–30
…
…
13,737
3,581


1930–31
…
…
13,804
5,028


1931–32
…
…
13,933
3,006


1932–33
…
…
13,996
3,546

Owing to the age and character of the structure and the ultimate liability for substantial renewals or reconstruction, a reserve fund is being accumulated.

MOTORING ACCIDENTS (ANIMALS KILLED).

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: 57.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state the number of animals which have been killed by motors on the public roads in the last 12 months, giving the type of animal in each case?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): I regret that the information asked for is not available.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the instructions laid down in the Road Traffic Act, 1930, are being carried out?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Oh, yes. But the police do not get a full report of every accident, and their reports will not be complete.

Major MILLS: Are there any steps that the right hon. Gentleman can take to bring it to the notice of the motoring public that ponies and cattle lawfully pasturing in the New Forest have as much right to be on the high road as motorists; in fact, more?

AUTOMATIC TRAFFIC SIGNALS.

Mr. SUMMERSBY: 27.
asked the Minister of Transport what is the approximate cost of supplying, erecting, and maintaining a set of illuminated automatic traffic signals; and is he satisfied that the delay they often cause to motor traffic, when there is no cross-wise traffic, is commensurate with their usefulness in other positions?

Mr. STANLEY: The approximate cost of supplying and erecting light signals actuated by vehicles at ordinary cross-roads is £550 and the annual cost of maintaining these signals about £60. I do not agree that signals of this type cause material delay to vehicles where there is no cross traffic.

Mr. SUMMERSBY: Will my hon. Friend cause observation, or ask for a report, to be made on the Southern side leading to Exeter?

Mr. STANLEY: I will certainly look into the matter, but my impression is that they are not light signals of the type mentioned in this answer, in that they are not actuated by the vehicle.

ROAD BRIDGES (RECONSTRUCTION).

Mr. JOEL: 29.
asked the Minister of Transport the policy of his Department with regard to assisting the reconstruction of the large number of bridges in the country which are insufficiently strong to carry ordinary motor traffic?

Mr. STANLEY: I attach great importance to the elimination of weak and dangerous bridges, and am disappointed at the slow progress hitherto made despite the assistance offered from the Road Fund. At my suggestion conferences with
bridge authorities and organisations representative of commercial transport by road have been convened by the county councils to consider the problem of weak bridges on important roads in their areas.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

PIGS AND BACON MARKETING SCHEMES.

Captain HEILGERS: 31.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can now give particulars of the terms that have been agreed upon between the Pigs and Bacon Marketing Boards for the next contract period?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): After prolonged negotiations regarding the contract prices for pigs for the period commencing 1st March next, the Pigs and Bacon Marketing Boards decided to bring into consultation the committee which had already been set up by the Government, under the chairmanship of Sir Wyndham Portal, to administer the loan promised to the Bacon Board for the purpose of meeting losses occasioned to curers, during the current contract period, by the operation of the scheme. Agreement has now been reached as follows:—The period of the contract will be 10 months, namely from 1st March to 31st December, 1934. For the months March and April, the basic price will be 12s. 6d. per score, and will rise or fall, as in the current contract, with rises or falls in the price of an agreed ration of feeding stuffs. This price is for delivery as in the existing contract, and is subject to a deduction of 6d. per score as the producer's contribution towards repayment of the advances to curers in respect of losses, already referred to. The contract price for the remaining eight months of 1934—i.e., from 1st May onwards—will be arrived at on an agreed sharing basis, the details of which are at present under consideration by the boards in conjunction with the Wyndham Portal Committee. The aim will be to relate pig prices not only to costs, but also to the selling price of bacon. As part of the general arrangement, it has also been agreed between the two boards, with the cognisance of the Government, that registered curers shall be compensated, out of the loan referred to, in respect of losses incurred on pigs bought from registered pig producers at the prescribed
prices, and on which the Pigs Board levy was paid, during the period 15th September to 31st December, 1933, and that no account shall be taken of profits or losses on pigs bought subsequently. The rate of compensation, assessed by the Wyndham Portal Committee, in respect of pigs bought between 15th September and 31st December, 1933, is 7s. 5d. per pig. I am glad to say that the short-term loan required from public funds will be in the neighbourhood of £160,000 instead of £500,000 as originally anticipated. I should like to express gratitude to Sir Wyndham Portal and his colleagues for their valuable assistance in this matter.

Captain HEILGERS: Is there any guarantee that the prices for the months subsequent to March and April will not be less than the price of 12s. 6d. a score for March and April?

Mr. ELLIOT: I do not think that I can give any guarantee. What we desire to do is to put this matter upon a profit-sharing and co-operative basis.

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the subsequent prices will at any rate be equal to the cost of production?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am afraid that I cannot discuss that matter by way of question and answer, but certainly I hope that it will not be less, because otherwise there will be no pig production.

MILK PRICES (CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES).

Sir BASIL PETO: 32.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the difficulty caused by the practice of the co-operative societies giving a discount off the retail price of milk by way of dividend, thus, in effect, selling below the normal average retail price in the district and under-selling retail private traders in milk; and whether he proposes to make any alteration in the milk scheme to deal with this?

Mr. ELLIOT: The contract prescribed by the Milk Marketing Board for the period 6th October, 1933, to 31st March, 1934, permits payment of dividends on retail sales of milk by any registered co-operative society, where the dividend is paid not oftener than once in every three months. The contract also provides that other retailers may allow to their cus-
tomers dividends or discounts on retail sales of milk not oftener than once in every three months and not exceeding the rate per pound actually paid on retail sales of milk by any co-operative society operating in the district. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. LEONARD: Is the Minister aware that in the constituency represented by the hon. Baronet there are no co-operative stores selling milk?

Sir B. PETO: Is the Minister also aware that there are hon. Members who ask questions in the public interest and not with one eye upon their constituencies?

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Would not the whole problem be solved if all consumers joined co-operative societies?

Mr. ELLIOT: Not at all. This puts purchasers from retailers exactly in the same position as purchasers from co-operative societies.

Lieut.-Colonel MacANDREW: Does the Minister's answer apply to Scotland?

Mr. ELLIOT: That question should be addressed to the Secretary of State for Scotland.

CONSUMERS' COMPLAINTS.

Mr. T. SMITH (for Mr. T. WILLIAMS): 30.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the committee appointed to safeguard the consumers' interests have received any complaints; and, if so, will he state their nature?

Mr. ELLIOT: The Consumers' Committee for England has received 20 complaints, all of which dealt with the retail price of milk. Of these, 15 were from private persons, three from urban district councils, one was from a local trade and labour council, and one was a petition signed by private persons. Four of the complaints also contained references to the price of bacon and, together with a further complaint on the same subject from an association of consumers, were accordingly referred to the Consumers' Council for Great Britain. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has sent to the Consumers' Committee for Scotland a complaint he has received relating to the Scottish Milk Marketing Scheme.

Mr. SMITH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when we are likely to have reports with regard to those complaints?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am afraid that I cannot say without notice.

Mr. BUCHANAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if, in connection with complaints about the price of milk in Scotland, and in view of the fact that prices affect very poor people, he will cause urgent inquiries to be made?

Mr. ELLIOT: No, Sir. The Scottish complaint is from an association representing hotel and restaurant proprietors who claim that under the Scottish Milk Marketing Scheme they should be regarded as manufacturers of milk.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman, being a Scottish Member himself, aware that there is considerable complaint concerning the poorer classes of the community who can only afford to purchase half-a-pint of milk at a time and have, therefore, to pay a proportionately higher rate than those who can afford to purchase a larger quantity; and will he look into the position and see that no one is penalised by reason of having, because of poverty, to buy milk in small quantities?

Mr. ELLIOT: My hon. Friend will realise that there is adequate machinery for dealing with those complaints, and it only remains for consumers to operate it in Scotland as they are doing in the case of England.

Information regarding the number and percentage of school meals provided free and for payment during the calendar year 1933 is given in Table I below. Particulars of the number of children fed can only be given for the last financial year or for a single month. As the returns for the financial year 1932–33 are now rather out of date, the latest available monthly figures, i.e., for December, 1933, are given in Table II.

TABLE I.

Number of Meals provided by Local Education Authorities during the Calendar Year 1933


England and Wales.
Free.
For Payment.
Total.
Percentage Free.
Percentage for Payment.


Counties (excluding London)
…
17,076,225
6,242,867
23,319,092
73.2
26.8


London
…
3,639,207
2,983,869
6,623,076
54.9
45.1


County Boroughs
…
23,342,715
3,226,226
26,568,941
87.9
12.1


Boroughs
…
3,919,260
387,270
4,306,530
91.0
9.0


Urban Districts
…
6,207,846
220,547
6,428,393
96.6
3.4


Totals
…
54,185,253
13,060,779
67,246,032
80.6
19.4

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

SECONDARY SCHOOLS.

Mr. PRICE: 33.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education the number of places for boys and girls in the secondary schools of England and Wales, and the number of free places for each sex in each county?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): On the 1st October, 1933, there were 244,244 boys and 213,350 girls in grant-aided secondary schools in England and Wales. Of these pupils 121,109 boys and 104,818 girls paid no fees. My Noble Friend is sending the hon. Member a list giving separate particulars in respect of the area of each local education authority.

PROVISION OF MEALS.

Mr. PRICE: 34.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education the number and percentage of school meals provided free and for payment, respectively, during 1933; and the number of children fed by county councils, county borough councils, borough councils, and urban district councils, giving each separately?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

TABLE II.

Number of Children fed during the month of December, 1933.


England and Wales.
Free.
For payment.
Total.


Counties (excluding London)
…
…
…
61,753
36,653
98,406


London
…
…
…
19,931
16,899
36,830


County Boroughs
…
…
…
81,732
19,348
101,080


Boroughs
…
…
…
18,469
3,944
22,413


Urban Districts
…
…
…
17,908
1,281
19,189


Totals
…
…
…
199,793
78,125
277,918

INSULIN.

Mr. LECKIE: 37.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take steps to repeal or reduce the import duty on insulin?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The position with regard to prices of insulin is being closely watched. My hon. Friend is no doubt aware that the price of foreign insulin has not been increased, and that the price of British insulin has recently been reduced.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 39 and 40.
asked the Minister of Health (1) the price of British and imported insulin; and whether he can now give an estimate of the additional cost to the hospitals of this country due to the 33⅓ per cent. tax upon imported insulin;
(2) the quantities of British and foreign insulin, respectively, sold in the United Kingdom in 1933, with the price per 100 units, wholesale and retail?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): Throughout 1933 the price per 100 units to the consumer of two of the three brands of British insulin was 2s., of the third 1s. 8d., and of the principal imported brand 1s. 5d. My right hon. Friend has no information as to the quantities sold. On 11th January, 1934, the price of two British brands was reduced to 1s. 10d., and of the third to 1s. 5d. with corresponding reductions in wholesale prices. There has been no change in the price of imported insulin since the additional import duty was imposed.

POOR LAW (PROPOSED CHILDREN'S HOME, SOUTHEND-ON-SEA).

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: 41.
asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the county borough council of Southend-on-Sea is considering the erection of a large home for Poor Law children in their district; and whether he will refuse his sanction to this proposal?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My right hon. Friend has no reason to think that the council contemplate a building which will be open to the objections feared by my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend will, however, bear his point in mind when the council's proposals are submitted.

RATE-BOOKS (INSPECTION).

Mr. JANNER: 42.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that certain local councils are making a charge to landowners and tenants for supplying particulars of the rateable value of their premises and of the rates charged thereon in 1914, and that in some cases 2s. 6d. is charged for each statement; and whether he will recommend all local authorities to give the essential information free of charge?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: If the cases to which the hon. Member refers are outside London, there is authority for a charge in such circumstances in Section 60 of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, which empowers ratepayers to inspect and take extracts from rate-books and other documents. In the case of documents more than 10 years old, the Section specifically provides for the payment, in respect of each document in-
spected, of a prescribed fee, which has been fixed at 2s. 6d. by statutory regulation. In London a ratepayer can inspect any rate-books, however old, free of charge, and an inhabitant who is not a ratepayer can only be charged a fee of 1s.

Mr. JANNER: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to recommend that this information shall be given to tenants and landlords without a charge, even in those cases where the Act provides for a charge at the present time, in order to enable those landlords and tenants to know the amount that is required for the purpose of the Rent Acts?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: No, Sir; I think there is no case for departing from the law.

Miss RATHBONE: Will the hon. Gentleman consider whether he could not extend to provincial districts the same privileges which are, apparently, conferred on London ratepayers in regard to inspection of the rate-books? Will he explain why London is especially privileged?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for debate.

SOLICITORS ACT (RULES).

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 43.
asked the Attorney-General whether the rules required by Section 1 of the Solicitors Act, 1933, have yet been received for approval from the Law Society; and, if so, the date upon which approval will be given, so as to make the rules operative for the protection of the public without further delay?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): I am informed that Rules under Section 1 of the Solicitors Act, 1933, have been made by the Council of the Law Society, and are now being further considered with a view to their submission to the Master of the Rolls for his approval during February.

INSURANCE COMPANIES.

Sir GEORGE JONES: 44.
asked the Attorney-General whether he has considered the possibility of taking proceedings against directors and officials responsible for carrying on the business
of an insurance company after such persons have become aware of its insolvency; and whether it is the intention of the Government to issue process where the necessary evidence is available against all persons responsible for illegality in the course of carrying on such business?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If my hon. Friend has any case to bring to my notice in which he suggests there is evidence that the directors or officials of an insurance company have been responsible for illegality in carrying on the business of the company, I shall be ready to consider whether any action can be taken.

COAL INDUSTRY.

MINING ROYALTIES.

Mr. T. SMITH: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the opinion expressed by the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission in their Report that the present system of mineral ownerships stands in the way of effective reorganisation of the mining industry, any legislation is contemplated in the near future to deal with the question of mining royalties?

The PRIME MINISTER: The opinion expressed by the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission will be considered by the Government; but in any case pressure on Parliamentary time would make legislation in the near future difficult.

Mr. SMITH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether we can expect in a reasonably short time any decision on this matter?

The PRIME MINISTER: The main and immediate part of the Commission's report is on another matter, and we should like to see what comes of it before taking further action.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is there not a stronger case for abolishing the Commission than for abolishing mining royalties?

OVERTIME.

Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: 52.
asked the Secretary for Mines with respect to the breaches of the Seven and a-half Hours Act and overtime working at Cardowan Colliery, Lanarkshire, if he will state the
date upon which inquiry was made into the complaint; and whether the inquiry was made by an inspector of mines at the colliery or otherwise?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): I received a report on this case, based on inquiries covering the period from 1st December, 1933, to 8th January, 1934, which were made at the colliery on 9th January by an inspector of mines. In communicating the results of the inquiries to the hon. Member, as I have already done, I informed him that they did not support the allegation of illegal overtime working.

Mr. PALING: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that particularly at mines where mechanisation has taken place there is a growing tendency to work long hours and overtime, and, when the attention of the coalowners is drawn to the matter, they nearly always excuse themselves by saying it is emergency work. Has the hon. Gentleman given his consideration to the matter?

Mr. BROWN: Consideration has been given to the matter, and I am proposing immediately to begin an investigation in Lancashire after consultation with the Miners' Federation and the Mining Association.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the inquiry was carried out in a thorough and proper manner?

Mr. BROWN: Certainly I am.

Mr. GRAHAM: 53.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he will make inquiry into the complaint that the seven and a-half hour day is being systematically broken at Ross Colliery, Hamilton, Lanarkshire, and that men are being threatened with dismissal if they refuse to carry out the instructions of the management, involving a breach of the law; and whether any action will be taken by his Department so that men anxious to observe the law will not be intimidated into breaking it?

Mr. BROWN: My attention has not previously been called to this colliery, but I will have inquiries made and will let the hon. Member know the result, or indicate when it would be convenient for him to repeat his question if he prefers that course.

Mr. GRAHAM: In any inquiry that is made is there ever a report that the 7½-hour day is being broken

Mr. BROWN: The question is regularly arising, and in every ease investigation is made. The hon. Member would not expect me to give a general answer, because each case must be examined on its merits. The inquiry that we are making is with the intention of eliciting how far the new machine mining has altered the basis of the regulations under the law of 1908 and whether any alteration is required.

Mr. PALING: Up to the present has any mines inspector given it as his opinion that, where work is necessary, it comes under the emergency clause and is emergency work?

Mr. BROWN: If the hon. Member has followed the subject, he will know that there is more in the problem. There have been certain prosecutions. The difficulty is that with the new machine mining it is very difficult to say what is or what is not emergency work under the Act of 1908. It is for that purpose that I have made the inquiry.

SCOTLAND.

FISHERY PROTECTION CRUISERS.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: 49.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how often the fishery cruisers were laid up in harbour in 1933 for boiler cleaning, and the time taken up on each occasion?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): As the answer involves a number of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The periods during which the cruisers were in harbour for boiler cleaning in 1933 are shown below.

In some of the periods other work was carried out.

"Brenda."
Days.


February
…
…
…
3


March
…
…
…
11


May
…
…
…
3


August
…
…
…
3


September-October
…
…
…
11

"Freya."
Days.


January
…
…
…
14


April
…
…
…
14


November
…
…
…
6

"Norna."



March-April
…
…
…
11


July
…
…
…
12

"Minna."



September
…
…
…
12


December
…
…
…
5

"Vigilant."



January
…
…
…
6


March
…
…
…
9


May
…
…
…
8


September
…
…
…
9

Mr. MACLEAN: 51.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if the fishery cruiser "Norna" was in Leith Harbour for coaling purposes during January, 1934; how long she remained in this harbour; how often this vessel put into Leith during 1933; and the period of each visit?

Mr. SKELTON: In January, 1934, the "Norna" was in Leith for seven days for coaling and boiler cleaning. As regards the last two parts of the question, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate the information desired in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information:

PARTICULARS of Visits to Leith by the Fishery Cruiser "Norna" during 1933.

EDUCATION (BURSARIES).

Mr. MACLEAN: 50.
asked the Secretary for Scotland the number of applications for bursaries which have been made to the Education Committee of the Glasgow Town Council in 1932 and 1933, and the number that have been refused; and how many have been refused because the income to the household was too low?

Mr. SKELTON: The figures asked for in the first part of the question are 8,214 and 8,121, respectively, and in the second
part, 561 and 629. I am not aware that any bursaries have been refused for the reason mentioned in the third part of the question. I should add, however, that the grounds for the grant or refusal of a bursary in a particular case are not available to the Scottish Education Department.

Mr. MACLEAN: Have not cases come to public notice recently in which that reason has been given for refusing a bursary; and will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries from the Glasgow Education Authority as to the numbers that have been refused for that reason?

Mr. SKELTON: My information is that no bursary has been refused for that specific reason, but I am prepared to make the inquiries asked for so long as the statement made in the last part of my answer is recognised.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that at the present time I have in hand two cases of that kind?

Mr. SKELTON: I am not aware of that, but, if the hon. Member desires to bring them before me, I shall be happy to look at them.

Mr. D. GRAHAM: Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries of the other authorities in Lanarkshire?

Mr. SKELTON: If any specific cases are brought to my notice I will certainly consider them, but, as at present advised, I do not think I could make a general fishing inquiry without information.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS (CONVERSATIONS).

Mr. T. SMITH (for Mr. T. WILLIAMS): 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make regarding his conversations with various foreign Ministers during his tour abroad?

Sir J. SIMON: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) on Monday last, to which I have nothing to add.

KENYA.

ARABS, MOMBASA.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the comments of the Governor of Kenya upon the petition forwarded by the Arab community in Mombasa have yet been received; and whether a reply has been returned to him?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: A summary of the Governor's comments has been received, and is now under consideration. We expect the Governor's full Comments to arrive in the course of a few days.

HUT AND POLL TAX.

Mr. BANFIELD (for Mr. T. GRIFFITHS): 16.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will issue instructions to the Kenya Government that the burning of huts of native men and women who are unable to pay hut and poll tax is to cease?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: The hon. Member is no doubt aware that the hut of a tax defaulter does not become forfeit to Government until the tax is 21 months overdue; and there is no reason to suppose that even when a hut has thus become forfeit it is the practice of Government to burn it.

Mr. BANFIELD (for Mr. T. GRIFFITHS): 17.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now see his way to issue instructions to the Kenya Government that the collection of tax from African widows is to be discontinued?

Mr. MacDONALD: African widows are not taxed in Kenya. The huts which they occupy are liable to hut tax, but in the great majority of cases the hut, together with the widow, becomes the property of the deceased husband's heir, and he, not the widow, is responsible for paying the tax. In the exceptional cases where a widow can find no such protector, my right hon. Friend is assured that she is normally exempted from the tax.

Miss RATHBONE: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the statement which he has just made, that in Kenya an African widow is the property of the heir, is not a contravention of the definition of slavery by the Expert Commis-
sion on Slavery, that a slave is a person over whom any or all of the property of ownership is exercised; and will he refer the matter of the position of African widows to the Expert Commission on Slavery?

Mr. MacDONALD: Speaking both as a bachelor and as the temporary answerer of this question, I should have to look into the matter.

Mr. BANFIELD (for Mr. T. GRIFFITHS): 18.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies in how many cases the provision in the native hut and poll tax ordinance of Kenya, enabling the local Government to waive the collection of tax from impoverished and destitute Africans, has been acted upon during the current year's tax collection?

Mr. MacDONALD: The hon. Member is no doubt aware that the tax in respect of the current year became due only on the 1st of January, and collection is still in progress. Cases for exemption would be considered as they arise.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.

Mr. V. ADAMS: 55.
asked the Home Secretary how many executions have occurred in England and Wales since the Select Committee in 1930 reported in favour of the abolition of the death penalty for an experimental period of five years; and how many of the offenders so executed were of the male sex?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The number is 29, all males.

FASCIST ORGANISATIONS.

Mr. V. ADAMS: 56.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the various military activities of the so-called British Fascists and, in particular, their possession of armoured cars; and what action he proposes to take?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The Unlawful Drilling Act, 1819, prohibits unauthorised meetings and assemblies of persons for the purpose of training or drilling themselves, or for the purpose of practising military exercise, movements or evolutions, and I have no reason to suppose that appropriate action would not be
taken under that Act should occasion arise. As regards the use of armoured cars, I understand that one of the Fascist organisations has recently purchased specially constructed motor vans for the conveyance of speakers to and from meetings. In reply to the second part of the question, the position is being and will continue to be carefully watched with a view to dealing appropriately with any undesirable developments which might arise.

Mr. ADAMS: Is not their persistent talk about dictatorship, and so on, a seditious threat to our democratic liberties?

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Is not the possession of this kind of implement illegal?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by "implement." As far as I am aware, there is no question of armoured cars in the sense of carrying arms.

Mr. JONES: Have any of the right hon. Gentleman's inspectors examined any of these cars?

Mr. WHITESIDE: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that no political body wears uniform, as it is liable to lead to breaches of the peace?

STOCK EXCHANGE RESTRICTIONS.

Mr. BROCKLEBANK: 59.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can make any statement as to the raising of the ban on foreign issues?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I cannot at present add anything to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for the Colchester Division (Mr. Lewis) on 9th November last.

GERMANY (BRITISH CREDITORS).

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 60.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will inform the German Government that the principles on which the German transfer moratorium are now being worked to the disadvantage of British long-term creditors are not in accord with international commercial practice or with
the views of His Majesty's Government; and will he in the meantime take appropriate powers and have set up an exchange clearing for Anglo-German trade ready to be put into operation should the German Government fail to readjust matters to the satisfaction of His Majesty's Government?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I would refer to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for the Reigate Division (Mr. Touche) on Monday last.

ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.

Sir W. DAVISON: 61.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the amount of unemployment which has been occasioned to members of the theatrical profession and their assistants by reason of the Entertainments Duty, which has to be paid irrespective of whether a play is financially successful or not; and Whether he will consider the removal of this tax so far as the living theatre is concerned, especially having regard to the recent increased receipts of the revenue from wireless licences and to the fact that wireless programmes are largely dependent on artistes who have received their training on the theatrical or concert stage?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: As regards the first part of the question, it would not be possible to ascertain the extent of unemployment in the theatrical profession which might be ascribed to the effects of the Entertainments Duty. As regards the second part, my hon. Friend's suggestion has been noted but I am sure that he will not expect me to anticipate the Budget statement.

Sir W. DAVISON: Will the inquiry be made as to whether the revenue is really benefiting by this tax on the living theatre, which is quite a small proportion of the total tax, and will the hon. Gentleman try to ascertain the number of people who are out of employment in the industry and the number of theatres which have been closed?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Naturally the effect of any particular tax upon the revenue and upon the industry concerned are matters for consideration.

ECONOMIC ADVISORY COUNCIL.

Sir P. HARRIS (for Mr. WHITE): 45.
asked the Prime Minister on how many occasions the Economic Advisory Council met during 1933; on what subjects it has reported; and whether it is intended to publish any of the reports?

The PRIME MINISTER: The work of the Economic Advisory Council and of its committees is confidential. A certain number of reports and other documents dealing with special subjects have, however, been published, and I am sending the hon. Member a list of those published in 1933.

SUMMER TIME.

Mr. CHORLTON (for Sir JOHN HASLAM): 54.
asked the Home Secretary if he will consider the advisability of legislation bringing forward, for this year only, the date when summer time is due to commence from Sunday, 22nd April, to Sunday, 25th March, in order that the benefits of longer daylight may be enjoyed during the Easter holidays?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The date for the beginning of summer time was settled by Parliament having regard to the convenience of different sections of the community, and I am not prepared to introduce a Bill to amend the existing law.

Mr. DORAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman when we are to have a little daylight on Government policy dealing with the great problem of unemployment?

CUSTOMS DUTIES (FOODSTUFFS).

Mr. T. SMITH (for Mr. T. WILLIAMS): 58.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of Customs duties on foodstuffs during each year since 1930; and the estimated yield during the present financial year?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The approximate amount of Customs duties collected on foodstuffs, including feeding stuffs for animals (which cannot be separately distinguished) during each of the financial years 1930–31 to 1932–33 was as follows:

£


1930–31
…
…
13,949,000


1931–32
…
…
16,522,000


1932–33
…
…
27,427,000

I am unable to furnish an estimate of the yield of these duties during the present financial year.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether foodstuffs for the purpose of that calculation include such articles as tea and coffee or not?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It is a rather complicated calculation. It does include tea and coffee, but not all the Excise.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Is it not possible for the Treasury to give us a fairly rough estimate as to the division of the two categories of the foodstuffs mentioned by the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is it not the case that all this information is published in detail in the Annual Report of the Commissioners of Excise, which can be obtained at the Vote Office?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: That is the case. All the information is accessible, and the figures which I have given include all the articles classified under groups A to F of Class I of the official Import and Export List, but it is given in that statement with more particularity.

UNEMPLOYMENT (WALES).

Mr. MAINWARING (for Mr. DAVID DAVIES): 62.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of boys and girls that are unemployed in Wales for the latest available date, and comparable figures for the two previous years?

Major GEORGE DAVIES (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply.
As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

The numbers of unemployed boys and girls, under 18 years of age, on the registers of Employment Exchanges in the Wales Division, at 18th December, 1933, and at the most nearly corresponding date for which figures are available in each of the two preceding years, were as shown below:

Date.

Boys.
Girls.


18th December, 1933
…
5,027
2,536


19th December, 1932
…
6,327
3,121


21st December, 1931
…
5,118
3,162

Mr. MAINWARING (for Mr. D. DAVIES): 63.
asked the Minister of Labour the latest figures showing the number of unemployed persons registered in each county in Wales division, giving separate
figures for men, women, and young persons, with comparable figures for the years 1930, 1931, and 1932?

Number of unemployed persons on the Registers of Employment Exchanges in each County in the Wales Division.


County.
Date.*
Men.
Women.
Juveniles.
Total.


Anglesey
…
December, 1930
1,384
70
43
1,497




1931
1,776
72
69
1,917




1932
1,969
75
65
2,109




1933
2,118
84
60
2,262


Brecknockshire
…
December, 1930
2,102
53
53
2,208




1931
2,370
59
69
2,498




1932
3,061
88
124
3,273




1933
3,141
69
107
3,317


Cardiganshire
…
December, 1930
1,208
76
35
1,319




1931
1,397
86
40
1,523




1932
1,917
80
40
2,037




1933
1,979
72
38
2,089


Caernarvonshire
…
December, 1930
5,101
412
267
5,780




1931
4,098
444
163
4,705




1932
6,909
380
259
7,548




1933
4,542
364
161
5,067


Carmarthenshire
…
December, 1930
8,725
485
395
9,605




1931
7,622
443
282
8,347




1932
8,590
510
34,8
9,408




1933
7,076
379
2436
7,721


Denbighshire
…
December, 1930
5,175
563
503
6,241




1931
6,420
626
429
7,475




1932
8,509
719
415
9,643




1933
9,046
604
375
10,025


Flintshire
…
December, 1930
6,745
627
199
7,571




1931
6,124
381
146
6,651




1932
6,382
622
214
7,218




1933
4,645
375
104
5,124


Glamorganshire
…
December, 1930
91,681
5,356
4,690
101,727




1931
107,950
6,155
5,687
119,792




1932
129,838
6,360
5,977
142,175




1933
120,374
5,340
4,790
130,504


Merionethshire
…
December, 1930
1,648
64
80
1,792




1931
1,146
69
28
1,243




1932
1,626
103
35
1,764




1933
1,548
84
24
1,656


Monmouthshire
…
December, 1930
29,545
1,070
1,618
32,233




1931
33,812
1,372
1,836
37,020




1932
40,497
1,330
1,806
43,633




1933
36,966
1,160
1,500
39,626


Montgomeryshire
…
December, 1930
647
127
25
799




1931
767
127
29
923




1932
988
151
27
1,166




1933
1,220
138
48
1,406


Pembrokeshire
…
December, 1930
2,453
155
95
2,703




1931
3,066
198
94
3,358




1932
4,024
212
111
4,347




1933
3,990
185
83
4,258


Radnorshire
…
December, 1930
178
40
5
223




1931
246
22
9
277




1932
367
21
7
395




1933
329
47
7
383


* The exact dates to which the figures relate are 15th December, 1930; 14th December, 1931; 19th December, 1932; and 18th December, 1933.

Major DAVIES: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

UNEMPLOYMENT BILL.

Mr. BUCHANAN: May I ask the Leader of the House if he has yet made representations to the Prime Minister on the point that I raised yesterday, namely, the question of the allocation of time in connection with the Unemployment Bill? Is he aware that certain very important items have not yet been discussed in Committee, and will the Government reconsider the whole question of the allocation of time on this Bill?

Mr. BALDWIN: While sympathising with the desire of the hon. Member for a more definite answer than I was able to give yesterday, I must say that the time has not arrived when I can give a more definite answer. It is perfectly obvious that my statement of yesterday holds good. Anyone responsible for the business of the House must watch the conduct of this Bill in the Committee stage, and we must use our judgment in allocating time later on. It is obvious that if a position arises in which the Government think that it is only fair to the House that more time must be given, then we shall consider the question with a sympathetic mind. After the second day of the Committee stage, as on the first, it is impossible to give an answer to that question yet.

Sir P. HARRIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, owing to the fact that the Government put down a very important Amendment, the Amendments of private Members in the first stage of the Guillotine yesterday were not discussed at all?

Mr. BALDWIN: It is my duty to know what goes on. Unfortunately, yesterday I was very much engaged in Committee but I am well aware of what took place, and such considerations must have effect when we have to decide what to recommend to the House.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION.

Mr. V. ADAMS: May I be allowed to make a personal explanation in connection with my supplementary on Question No. 8. My supplementary was intended, as I hope the House will see, to be directed to the difficulty of navigating any battleship of the displacement of His Majesty's Ship "Nelson" in narrow waters, but in so far as any reflection
seemed to be cast upon the skill and care of the captain, I apologise to the House and readily withdraw it, as no such reflection was in my mind, or intended.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS.

PRIVATE MANUFACTURE OF ARMAMENTS.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the question of the private manufacture of armaments, and move a Resolution.

EMPIRE DEVELOPMENT.

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the need of a standing committee of representatives of all parts of the Empire to promote co-operation in all forms of Empire development, and move a Resolution.

SOCIALISM AND DICTATORSHIP.

Mr. PEAT: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to Socialism and Dictatorship, and move a Resolution.

RETIRING PENSIONS.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the question of the necessity for providing retiring pensions of £1 per week for both men and women at 60 years of age, and move a Resolution.

TRADE WITH RUSSIA.

3.46 p.m.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to move,
That this House urges His Majesty's Government to take active steps to correct the present unsatisfactory balance of trade between the United Kingdom and Russia in order that British manufacturers and producers may secure a more adequate share in the markets of that country.
On Monday the Prime Minister gave the House an assurance that we should be given an opportunity of debating the Anglo-Russian Trade Agreement. I am thankful that we have been afforded this opportunity for the House to voice its opinion on the proposed Trade Agreement before that agreement has been signed, so that any remarks we may make may perhaps bear fruit and not be, as is so often the case, in the nature of vain regrets or unprofitable criticisms or a fait accompli. In considering the question of Russian trade, I am afraid that we must recollect that we are dealing with an avowedly hostile State. It is unnecessary to emphasise that point, which is not denied by responsible Russians, and which is borne out by the columns of the "Pravda" or the "Izvestia," the official organs of the Soviet State, almost every day. In considering doing trade with a country like that——

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: On a point of Order. May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether it is in order for an hon. Member to refer to Russia as an avowedly hostile State?

Mr. SPEAKER: It is not customary and it is crtainly undesirable to refer to any country which is friendly with us, in that way.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: If I may proceed—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] My own inclination is to have no dealings with that country.

Mr. MANDER: On a point of Order. Is it not usual for an hon. Member in those circumstances to withdraw the remarks that he has made?

Mr. SPEAKER: It is customary to make some reference to my Ruling.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, and, if I am out of order in referring to that country
in those terms, I will certainly withdraw. My own inclination would be to have no dealings with that country, but when we consider that that would mean sacrificing an export market for some million pounds worth of goods then, speaking as one who represents one of the hardest-hit industrial constituencies in the West of Scotland, I should find it very difficult to convince myself that we were right in neglecting any export market. My object in moving this Resolution is not to express my, perhaps, rather half-hearted agreement with the Government's policy but rather to urge that, having decided to come to this Trade Agreement, they should press forward with all speed and make every endeavour to conclude the agreement as promptly and as satisfactorily as possible. I deplore the fact that since the negotiations were recommenced on the 1st July, when the embargo was lifted, seven months have been allowed to drag on without the agreement being signed. When one looks at the reason for that, it is not far to seek. During the first six months after the embargo was lifted the balance of trade between Russia and ourselves has been six to one in favour of Russia; that is to say, Russia has imported into this country £12,000,000 worth of goods, and we have only exported to Russia £2,000,000 worth of goods.
There is no incentive for the Soviet Government to conclude a trade agreement so long as the trade position remains so thoroughly satisfactory from their point of view. Indeed, when we recollect that no trade agreement giving a balance of trade so heavily in favour of Russia could possibly be acceptable to this House, we have the very strongest incentive for Russia to postpone the signing of this agreement as long as she can. I do not blame the Russian Government, but I call in question most seriously the action of His Majesty's Government in permitting this state of affairs to go on. A solution, moreover, is at hand. We have a weapon. We have only to announce that unless by a certain date, say the 1st March—it might well have been the 1st November or the 1st October—Russia signs the Trade Agreement we will restrict the import of Russian goods into this country to the amount of goods that we are allowed to export to Russia, and there is a cogent
and practical incentive to the Soviet Government to hurry and sign this agreement without delay. If, as the Government hold, this agreement is going to be a benefit to this country, if it will provide work for some of our unemployed, then I submit that we should not hesitate to use whatever powers we have with resolution in order to obtain the agreement without delay.
Then there is the question whether the agreement is likely to be satisfactory. It seems to me that we hold the trump cards. I am prepared to admit that we want the Russian export market, I am prepared to admit that we do want some timber and oil from that country, although there is everything to be said in favour of obtaining these commodities from the Dominions and other foreign countries. But when you look at the list of imports into this country for the last year you find that no less than £1,700,000 worth of butter was imported from the Soviet, largely, I understand, by the co-operative societies. Further, there were imported £1,300,000 worth of wheat and £500,000 worth of salmon. Surely these are commodities which we might produce in the home market, or certainly obtain from the Dominions. I submit that if it comes to restrictions we have a very fertile field here where we can restrict Russian imports without doing ourselves any harm at all. I grant that we have something to gain from the Russian trade, otherwise we should not be seeking a trade agreement with that country. I agree that we want to sell them steel and machinery and herring, but I submit that their market is in no way vital to us, that the welfare of our people and the prosperity of British industry does not depend on our selling goods to Russia.
Let us look at the position from that point of view. The industrial development of the Soviet Union is dependent on her importing capital goods and machinery from foreign countries. I do not say that she has to import them from Britain, and, actually, when I was in Russia in 1932 I gathered, from such engineers as I met, that for certain reasons, geographical, industrial and political, they rather preferred German and American goods to British machinery. But the point remains that she has to
purchase these capital goods from foreign countries somewhere, and that these purchases have to be paid for by exports. When it comes to exports the United Kingdom is by far the most important export market the Soviet Government have got. I will not weary the House by reciting many figures, but may I say that in 1932, which is the last full year for which we have figures, the United Kingdom market accounted for no less than one-quarter of the total Russian export trade, and, further, that we purchased from Russia more than Germany, although Germany was permitted to export into Russia three and a half times as much as we were permitted to export.
The point I want to make is that the British market is infinitely more important to Russia than the Russian market is to this country. One figure alone will illustrate that point, and that is that we represent one-quarer of her export markets whereas she represented in 1932 only one-fortieth of the British export markets, and if you take the figures of the latter half of this year she only represented something like one-hundredth part of the British export market. Mr. Litvinov may go to Washington, he may achieve recognition for the Soviet by that country, but he will not be able to persuade the United States to buy Russian timber or to purchase Russian oil. I believe that Soviet Russia would find it almost impossible to replace the British market; and therein lies the strength of our case. Lest we on our part should be over anxious in scrambling for the Russian market, we should analyse very carefully what that market is likely to amount to in the future. If my contention is correct Russia would, in fact, prefer to buy machinery from Germany and the United States and does not really wish to purchase British herring. That seems to me to be amply borne out by the fact that however much she may need them she did not purchase any British herring during last year, although there is nothing to prevent her doing so with or without a Trade Agreement.
If my contention is correct, it is clear that any purchases the Soviet make from us are going to be in the nature of a bait to capture our export market, and as such we must count upon them as
being always the minimum. We must also remember that future orders and purchases will be principally in capital goods, and are, therefore, likely to decrease. As each instalment of capital plant places her a step nearer economic independence, so also will the incentive to meet her financial obligations be propressively reduced. This, I submit, is a very relevant point, when we remember that Russia is demanding greater credit for her purchases. All these points make it perfectly clear that, although selling goods to Russia may be trade of a sort, it is certainly not the best sort of trade. It is incomparably worse trade for us to sell goods to Russia for credit than it is for Russia to sell goods here for cash. It is a gamble whether we are to be ultimately paid for the goods or not. Then there is the fact that, since she is not a willing buyer, she is certain, for political as well as for financial reasons, to seize the slightest opportunity to discredit any goods which she purchases. Lastly, but not least, we have the consideration that if British engineers are to be sent to Russia, they are liable at any time to be seized and imprisoned without just cause. It seems to me that we must guard against making the mistake of putting too high a value on this Russian market, when we remember that we are proposing to purchase it at the expense of our own British market, which is an object of envy, an object desired by every exporting nation in the world. Surely, then, the House will agree with me, that when it comes to negotiation, we are in a position to demand a quid pro quo on every single point, to insist on fair play for British creditors and to demand at least an equal balance of trade.

4.3 p.m.

Mr. BOOTHBY: I beg to second the Motion.
It has been ably and interestingly proposed by my hon. Friend. I do not know whether my sentiments before I have finished will be exactly the same as his, but, at any rate, we can subscribe together to the Motion, and I think that we can agree on quite a number of points. At the outset, I wish to say that I am not at all impartial on this matter, as some hon. Members know. I do not claim to be impartial. My constituents,
to a large extent, are engaged in catching herring, and it is well known to hon. Members that the Russian market is vital to their industry. Before the War, the export trade in herring to Russia amounted to about £1,000,000 a year. These herring, or the vast bulk of them, must be cured and exported, they are caught in such vast quantities and over such a short period of time.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Was not the quantity 1,000,000 barrels?

Mr. BOOTHBY: I should have said 1,000,000 barrels, the actual value being more. We cannot expect to dispose here of the annual catch of herring, which are nearly all landed either in the early summer or in the autumn. There are only about three or four months of really busy fishing. You cannot dispose of anything like the total catch in the home market, or in any other market expect the European, and one of our difficulties at the present time is that these herring are being shut out of so many European markets in addition to Russia. Take Germany, for example. The German Government, as is well known, are bent upon making Germany as far as possible into a self-supporting economic unit. They are making it very difficult for us to export, and, indeed, by subsidy they are building up a herring fishery of their own in order to catch their own herring and market them inside their own country. That means that, in the course of time, we have to face up to the possibility that perhaps a second market for our export of herring is going to be closed. I, myself, after nine years' study of the herring industry, have no hesitation in saying, that unless we can recapture a market for these herring during the next three or four years, the industry is doomed. I do not for a moment say that that justifies us in making every sort of concession to Russia that we ought not to make; and if it were in the national interest not to resume friendly relations with Russia, I would unhesitatingly say that the herring industry should be sacrificed to the national interest. At the moment I am merely pointing out the economic facts of the industry.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: You would sacrifice the Scottish fishermen?

Mr. BOOTHBY: I say, if it were in the national interest to do so. The hon.
Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) would, no doubt, be prepared to sacrifice the millionaires of this country if it were in the national interest to do so.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The millions—not the millionaires.

Mr. BOOTHY: I would, however, point out that the drifter fleet, which constitutes the herring industry, is a vital necessity to us in time of war. During the War we had the highest testimony that the drifters were absolutely necessary for the maintenance of our Grand Fleet, and I say that if we cannot, somehow or other, restore foreign markets to that industry, this House, in the national interest, will have to face up to the necessity of affording some direct financial assistance to the herring fishing industry, which is an essential part of our national defence in time of war. You cannot allow the whole population round the cost of Scotland to be thrown out of employment, and forced away from the sea. I do not think that that is a solution of this problem, to whatever other solution we may come, to which this House or country would ever agree.
Having established the fact that, as a representative of this industry, I am thoroughly partial in this matter of trade with Russia, I do feel that it is very necessary that all speakers in this Debate should guard against saying anything that would weaken the hands of my hon. Friend and the Government in the negotiations which are at present going on with the Soviet Government, or prevent those negotiations being brought to a successful conclusion. We want to strike the best bargain we possibly can, and nobody is more interested in striking a good bargain, as my hon. Friend who moved this Motion pointed out, than those engaged in the herring industry. I want to see the best bargain struck for our people that we can possibly get, and I have always maintained, as hon. Members who do not agree with me on some other aspects of this question will agree, that the balance of trade during the last seven or eight years between this country and Russia has been hopelessly wrong, [...]op-sided, and ought to be corrected.
I would like the Secretary for the Department of Overseas Trade to tell us, when he comes to reply, what it is that is holding up these negotiations. They
really are interminable; they have been dragging on and on. We all know that it is the practice of the Oriental, the Easterner, to spin out negotiations as long as possible, but I think the hon. Member must admit that seven months is a long time, a good allowance. I want to know whether the hitch has occurred about one or two specific points, or whether it is on the general question of the balance of trade between the two countries. If it is on the general question of the balance of trade between the two countries, then I think my hon. Friend is perfectly justified in holding out, and, if necessary, breaking off negotiations altogether; but, if it is on a specific point, I am not so sure that he is on sound ground. Take, for example,—and here I am only quoting rumours—the case of the Lena Goldfields. That is a question which involves a private company and not the nation as a whole, and all that it is necessary for us to do at the moment is to establish a principle, for example, the principle of arbitration; but I do not think that haggling over figures at the present time in connection with that particular company and the affairs of that company will justify the holding up of a general agreement covering the whole field. I would add that I do not believe that in the future the best way or the right way of our conducting business with Russia is by means of concessions held by us inside Russia. I do not think that that will ever prove to be satisfactory in the long run, and we ought not to seek for these concessions. If people do so, it should be entirely at their own risk, because it has been made perfectly clear over a considerable period of years that the Soviet Government do not, desire what they would call capitalist companies operating under concessions inside their own territories, and I think we should have nothing to do with that method of conducting business with the Soviet Union.
Is there any business to be done along other lines? Here I disagree with my hon. Friend. I believe that there is a substantial business to be done between Russia and this country; for instance, agricultural machinery, machine tools, and last, but not least, railway development and transport development. I read the other day a most interesting interview which Mr. Duranty, the brilliant correspondent of the "New York Times"
in Moscow, had with Mr. Stalin. He asked him:
What, at the present time, is the most important problem of internal policy in the Soviet Union?
and Mr. Stalin replied:
The development of trade between city and village, and the strengthening of all types of transport, particularly railroad. The solution of these questions is not so easy, but easier than those which we have already solved, and I am confident we shall solve them.
I do not know whether it has occurred to hon. Members that a not inconsiderable part of the wealth of this country during the last century was built up by developing transport facilities in foreign countries and in the Dominions. I would ask hon. Members seriously to consider our position in the economic situation of the world at the present time—on the one hand, the development of transport facilities and new methods of communication of all kinds—the world telescoped geographically; and, on the other hand, the steady growth for the last 10 years of economic nationalism and isolation on the part of the nations, which have been shutting us out from the export markets we used to enjoy, and upon which our whole industrial system has been built up. We are one of the few countries in the world which has got to have an export trade.
I entirely agree with Members of my own party who put the development of Empire trade first. I say let it come first every time. I wish that far more active steps were being taken at the present time to extend, consolidate and organise trade within the Empire and to develop our export trade in this field. But I do not think that this is enough if we are to maintain the workers in our exporting industries at a decent standard of life in the next 20 or 30 years; and I do not think that we can afford, unless compelled to do so, to ignore what is potentially, and, I think, likely to remain for many years to come, the greatest market in the world for capital goods, and the only market left for us to exploit in this direction. I use the term "exploit" in no disparaging sense, but in the legitimate sense. [Laughter.] You can use the word "exploit" in a perfectly legitimate business sense, and I think that we should exploit the Russian market, and get as much money out of it as we
possibly can. The hon. Member has pointed out that there are risks. Of course there are risks. They are always attendant upon the conduct of trade under our present system, at any rate, and are likely to remain attendant upon it for many years to come. But would we have built up our industrial supremacy if we had not taken any risks?
I would point out to hon. Members who are frightened of doing trade with Russia that from 1924 to 1929 a passion amounting almost to mania developed in the City of London for lending money to Germany. Money poured into Germany from the City in millions, into German municipalities, German bonds and industrial undertakings, and the Government of this country never raised a finger to check that outflow of capital. On the contrary it, received the active assistance of the Export Credits Scheme of that time. I was not averse at the time, and am never averse, to our lending money. I think it is the basis of our export trade. But I do think it was overdone with regard to Germany at that period, and I am particularly irritated when I reflect that to a large extent the Germans passed on the money straight to Russia in the form of extended credits, taking a rake-off of from two to five per cent. In the last resort who defaulted, the Germans or the Russians? Hon. Members know it was the Germans. The Russians on a debt incurred directly by the Soviet Government have never yet defaulted. If you are to assess risks I say that undoubtedly in the period from 1924 to 1929 the German risk was the greater of the two.
I come now to a few words about the general political situation, as apart from the economic situation. It is naturally a delicate question, and I propose to tread warily, especially as I see the Lord Privy Seal present. I think we would all agree that while the situation has taken a sharp turn for the better in the last 24 hours, if we were to look for two danger-spots in the world to-day, from the point of view of international peace, we would probably turn to Japan on the one hand and to Germany on the other. Our chief interest at the moment is to preserve peace, but if we take a survey over the whole field of international policy those are two of the danger-spots. Whether we like the Soviet Government or dislike it, there is one point upon
which we can all agree, and that is that the Soviet Government has an even greater interest than we have at the moment in preserving peace; because the Russians have said, and know perfectly well, that the one thing which would jeopardise the Soviet regime, the one thing which might easily bring about the fall of the whole of the Socialist-Communist system, would be to engage in war on any large scale. For this reason I think that, if we can do it, the establishment of more friendly relations between Great Britain and Russia would be a stabilising factor in international politics and a safeguard for peace. We want every safeguard for peace that we can get.
I ask my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department to answer one question: Does he really want to establish more friendly relations with Russia? Is that the objective of the Government, or in fact do they not want to establish friendly relations and trading relations with Russia at all? He cannot, of course, answer on details, but on the question of principle I think that that is a fair question, because there are many people who are in some doubt about it. There is no question that in the past the Russians have been guilty of something a great deal worse than mistakes. The imprisonment of our engineers was a wicked thing to do. But I am not certain that the faults are entirely on one side. Looking back over the last 10 years I do not think it can be said that our handling of the Russian problem has been uniformly happy. In retrospect the Arcos raid seems to become more and more a senseless and foolish business.
It would be a good thing if we could try to wipe out the past, and make a fresh start in this business of our relations with Russia. We cannot altogether leave out of account the fact that there is a great difference between the foreign policy and outlook of Mr. Stalin and that of Mr. Trotsky. Indeed, what they actually broke upon was that Trotsky held out to the bitter end for active measures being taken by the Soviet to bring about world revolution, whereas Stalin always held that their immediate objective should be, and should remain for a long time to come, consolidation, development and organisation inside Russia, and no interference with anyone
beyond the boundaries of Russia. No doubt, while propaganda, perhaps inevitably, has not entirely ceased, the anti-British propaganda outside Russia is infinitely less and less harmful to-day than it was several years ago.
In these circumstances I submit to the House that the time has now come when we should endeavour to establish more friendly relations and better trading relations with Russia, and make a genuine attempt to get the whole of our relations upon a better footing so as to make a fresh start. After all, the Soviet Government at this moment is carrying out a gigantic experiment. In this country we do not agree with the economic side. For my part I am not at all convinced that some of the experiments that the Russians are making at the moment in the scientific and sociological field will not be of tremendous and permanent importance in the future and have a great effect upon the destinies of the whole human race. At any rate, whether they are good or bad, we ought to know about them, and I think we ought to be in closer touch with them than we are. I was amazed the other day when I was in the United States, before America reestablished relations with Russia, to read full, interesting and by no means necessarily friendly reports of what was going on in Russia. Those reports appeared in all the American newspapers and were from their correspondents in Moscow. They were by no means invariably favourable to the Soviet Government, but they were very interesting. Take what happens in this country. Our greatest newspaper, the national newspaper, the "Times," has no correspondent in Russia at all, and we get in it no first-hand information of what is going on in Russia.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Why?

Mr. BOOTHBY: It is a question I would like to have answered. I can only say that I think it is unfortunate that our Press should be so inadequately represented in Soviet Russia, and that our information as to what is going on there should be so scanty. There are two experiments going on in the world to-day, one in the United States and the other in Russia, which are bound to be of great importance to us in the future. We ought to know what is going on in both countries, so as to learn from their experience what to follow, and, still more
important, what to avoid. The more we can find out and the closer we can get from the point of view of cultural relations to those two countries, the better for us in the long run. I would ask my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department to answer my two questions: Do the Government want better relations with Russia as a matter of principle, and, secondly, what is the cause of the long-drawn-out delay in arriving at a satisfactory agreement?

4.25 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES BROWN: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
in view of the urgent necessity for a mutually satisfactory Anglo-Russian trade agreement, this House urges His Majesty's Government to take active steps to that end, leaving any other matters in dispute to be settled by separate negotiation.
I am certain that the two speeches to which we have just listened echo to some degree the sentiment of my Amendment. We are in agreement to some extent with both the Mover and the Seconder of the Motion in stressing the necessity for an immediate Trade Agreement with Russia. The hon. Member for North Lanarkshire (Mr. Anstruther-Gray) was torn between two opinions. Perhaps I ought not to have put it quite in that way, however. His first impulse was to have nothing to do with Russia, but I was very glad when his political prejudices seemed to be overcome by his recognition of economic realities. That was at any rate a mark of some importance in our discussion to-day. The hon. Member recognised the importance of the Russian market. I want particularly to ask the Government what are the reasons for the delay in making a new Trade Agreement with Russia? To some of us the delay seems quite unwarranted and unnecessary, and we cannot help feeling that there are perhaps matters of which we have no knowledge which are playing a part in these negotiations and which ought to be ruled out entirely, especially when one looks at the matter from the standpoint of urgency, which has already been stressed by the Mover and Seconder of the Motion.

No one can deny the fact that the absence of a trade agreement and the embargoes placed on Anglo-Russian
trade between April and July, 1933, had a disastrous effect on our exports to Russia. For instance, in the nine months ended 30th September, 1932, the exports to Russia were £7,000,000. In the corresponding period of 1933 they amounted to only £2,784,000. During the same period there was a corresponding fall in our re-exports to Russia. I know it may be said that there has been a decline in Russian imports generally and that what has happened is only part of that general decline. I do not know whether it would be possible to defend that point of view, because if we had had amicable trade relations with Russia I do not think that we need have suffered in the way that we have done in the decline of our exports to that country. It is obvious that Russia wants a trade agreement with Britain. I do not think the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department will deny that statement. In this connection I want to quote from a speech made by Mr. Litvinov, Commissar for Foreign Affairs, in the course of a speech before the Central Executive Committee on 29th December last. He said:
Our relations with Great Britain cannot boast either of stability or continuity. There are no objective reasons for this. I am quite certain that the British people as a whole desire to live in peace and friendship with us, but there are elements there which are still wrapped in the sweet dreams of a general capitalist struggle against the Socialist country, dreams from which the United States has just shaken itself free. They will be unable to destroy or even to shake our Socialist country. Consequently, in view of the well-known practical character and common sense of the British, one cannot help being astonished that amongst them there should still be some quixotic snipers and partisans. In so far as it depends on us we are ready, and we should like to have, as good relations with Great Britain as with other countries, for we are convinced that sincere and good relations between great Powers are not only a necessary condition but are a guarantee of general peace. It is expected that a temporary trade agreement will be signed shortly which, removing as it will certain misunderstandings, we hope will make possible better relations between ourselves and Great Britain.

Obviously there is a sincere desire on the part of the Russians for the immediate signing of a trade agreement and I do not think that any hon. Member here is prepared to deny the importance to us of an agreement with Russia. However
much the hon. Member for North Lanark may dislike the Russian economic system, I am sure that when he surveys the situation in industrial Scotland he realises that a trade agreement with Russia must benefit the areas which he has in mind. I take it that he assents to that proposition and that we are agreed generally as to the necessity and importance of an agreement with Russia. We want to know, therefore, why these negotiations have been so prolonged. What is the difficulty in the way of bringing them to a satisfactory conclusion? Everybody knows that the number of the friends of the National Government is rapidly diminishing, but there are some people who remain loyal to them, through thick and thin—even people of importance and among these is Mr. J. L. Garvin of the "Observer." He is very loyal to the National Government and I shall quote something which was written by him in regard to this matter, on 10th December, 1933.
Time was, not very long ago, when Mr. Litvinov could hardly get himself reported in any newspaper outside Moscow. His views are now sought and studied in most countries. … The truth is that as Russia has turned the corner in her domestic economics, so she has achieved an important, in some ways cardinal, position in the present phase of high diplomacy.
Commenting on the speech of Mr. Litvinov to which I have just referred, Mr. Garvin goes on to say:
Much of what Mr. Litvinoff said on Friday needed saying. The time has gone for financial polemics of the Krassin era. Events have placed the diplomacy of Moscow in a key position both in Far Eastern and in European affairs. Every serious person shares his regret that Anglo-Russian relations have not yet permitted him to complete his Washington mission of last month with an equally good understanding with Britain.
There is another article on 14th January this year in which Mr. Garvin writes that every week brings new evidence of the importance of Russia's part in high diplomacy. The fact that Mr. Garvin is an enthusiastic and consistent supporter of the National Government ought to add weight to his views on this subject as far as the Government are concerned, especially having regard to the fact that they are now surrounded by an ever-increasing number of enemies. The position of the Government in regard to this matter was stated by the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Depart-
ment on Monday last. In reply to a question put by the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. Graham White), the hon. and gallant Gentleman said he was not yet in a position to make any further statement on the negotiations for an agreements, but, later on, in reply to a question put by the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) in reference to the Lena Goldfields Company he said:
An intimation has been received from the Soviet Government that if the company were to inform the Concessions Committee that they had not been able to accept the former offer made to them but were ready to resume negotiations, the committee would respond favourably. It was added that the mere fact of a resumption of negotiations would indicate a mutual amendment of terms. His Majesty's Government have accordingly advised the company to send the Concessions Committee a letter proposing to send representatives to Moscow to discuss the claim on the understanding that the terms would be materially amended on both sides. The company have decided to adopt this course."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th January, 1934; col. 39, Vol. 285.]
Further questions were put, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman maintained his ground and refused to go any further. I wish to ask him now: is it not a fact that such an arrangement as this could have been made almost two years ago? Why was not that which now appears to have been accepted, accepted two years ago?

Sir W. DAVISON: It was.

Mr. BROWN: I think we had better await the official reply from the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department. The question of what is preventing the conclusion of a Trade Agreement is a very interesting one. The hon. Member for South Kensington who puts quite a number of questions in the House on the subject of the Lena Goldfields Company—as he is quite entitled to do—will probably take part later in this Debate if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, and consequently I want to make some references to the Lena Goldfields business. It is not my intention to go into the merits or demerits of the dispute. I understand that the most recent reply of the Soviet Government on the matter is as stated by the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department on Monday. But I ask the Minister: is it a fact that
throughout the negotiations the Soviet representatives have maintained that the Lena Goldfields case is a separate matter, and that in agreeing to the various terms of an agreement they have acted on that assumption. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) stressed the fact that there are matters of this kind which require to be arranged between our Government and the Government of Russia, but which ought not to be allowed to interefere with the general Trade Agreement which is being negotiated at the present time. Let us hear Mr. Garvin on the Lena Goldfields case. In the "Observer" on 21st January, 1934, he wrote:
Let the National Government be as resolute as President Roosevelt in its decision to make a big settlement with Soviet Russia. By comparison with the new world-issues which have arisen, all minor disputes like that concerning the Lena Goldfields should be swept out of the main business. They should be the subject of separate and subordinate negotiation.
I do not think it has ever been taken as a matter of principle that disputes between British investors and foreign Governments or nationals—which are not unusual—should interfere with such agreements. Since when has the signing of Trade Agreements been made conditional on the settlement of such claims. I should like the Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade to answer that question. Has any British Government ever made the conclusion of a Great Britain-United States Trade Agreement, for instance, conditional on a settlement of the claims preferred against certain Southern States of the United States in regard to their pre-Civil War and post-Civil War bond issues?

If the non-settlement of the Lena Goldfields claim is holding up the conclusion of an agreement, we are entitled to examine the composition of the company. It is not without interest in view of the important part which it has played apparently behind the scenes in connection with this question. The largest shareholder and noteholder of the company in December 1929, when the dispute with the Soviet Government arose was a Mr. Benenson. This was admitted by the chairman of the company on 16th December, 1929. Mr. Benenson is not a British subject, but a gentleman of Russian extraction and American citizen-
ship. The chairman of the company, Mr. Herbert Guedella, admitted at a meeting of the note-holders of the company on 27th December, 1930, that Mr. Martin Coles Harman had been a member of the Note-holders Committee of the company. Mr. Martin Coles Harman was sentenced on 15th November, 1933, to 18 months' imprisonment for defrauding the shareholders of the Chosen Corporation Limited. The Lena Goldfields Company at the close of 1925 and the beginning of 1926 raised a loan of £750,000 at an annual interest rate of 8 per cent. The loan was issued at the rate of £80 for £100 nominal value and, after all deductions, the company only received about £550,000. This loan was placed by the Rock Investment Company Limited, of which the notorious Mr. Martin Coles Harman was chairman at that date. I do not want to go into any further details or to take up the time of the House further on that aspect of the matter, although there are further details just as interesting as those I have given. The point I wish to make is this. Are the general trade interests of this country which are likely to be affected by a Trade Agreement with Russia, being held up merely because of certain things which have happened in connection with a particular company in Russia run by a group of cosmopolitan financiers? How far is that fact influencing the Government?

There are certain other factors which we have to face in view of the long delay in making this agreement. Let us recollect that the United States and Russia have entered into diplomatic relations quite recently—on 17th December, 1933, to be precise—and that ambassadors have now been mutually appointed by these two countries. Everything goes to prove that an understanding with Russia has been welcomed in America. Some of the advisors to the American Government speak about an annual export to Russia amounting in the future to the equivalent of £100,000,000. It is true that in other quarters this is regarded as an exaggeration, but the fact remains that in 1930, when there were no diplomatic relations between the two countries, the United States exports to Russia amounted to the equivalent of £23,500,000. Even if the figure of £100,000,000 is an exaggeration it is not
without importance to us that some arrangement is being made with the United States.

Also let us note the improvement in the relations between France and Russia. Why are we always the last in the field. Why have we allowed the United States and France to get the advantage of us. This Government is supposed to be a Government of action, a Government which does things quickly in the national interest. Why all this delay? What are the obstacles in the way of an immediate arrangement with Russia? Everybody knows that the Soviet relations with many other countries are quite good. Real statesmen—and I imagine there are many people who would claim that we have some in the National Government—should not allow themselves to be controlled by the mere circumstances of the moment. They ought to look ahead. If they are really going to further the ultimate interest of their country, they should have regard to the possible circumstances of the future in determining their policy.

I agree with the hon. Member for East Aberdeen as to the future possibilities of the Russian market. It is customary in some circles to contrast the general conditions among the masses of the people in Russia with the conditions which obtain in Great Britain. Obviously, that comparison is made in such a way that it shows to the disadvantage of Russia, and it would be strange if it did not. We have had in this country an industrial civilisation for nearly 100 years and if we had not raised the general standard of life of the mass of the people, the indictment that could be drawn against that industrial civilisation, would be even more powerfuul than it is to-day. But the real comparison is not between the condition of the masses of the Russian people and the masses of the British people. The real test is the difference between the condition of the Russian people to-day and the conditions which obtained in the days of the Tsars. Judged by that test, there has been a considerable rise in the standard of life among the masses of the Russian people. I have quite a lot of facts and figures on that matter that I could quote if I wanted, and I do not think I should have any difficulty in proving my point. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) shakes his head. I am
afraid that he is far more actuated by political prejudice than was the hon. Member for North Lanark, who moved the Motion, but perhaps some day his economic sense—and he has some—will come to the surface on this Russian matter.

In my view, among all the great masses of the people in Europe, it is only in Russia where at the moment the masses of the people have a rising standard of life. It is very doubtful if in any other Western European country at this moment the standard of life of the masses of the people is improving at all. You may very well tell me that the Russian standard is below ours. I agree, but in Russia there is a definite, steady improvement in the standards of the great mass of the people. In this connection, when I am hearing discussions on this matter, there frequently comes into my mind a passage that I read in a brilliant little monograph on the life of Tolstoy in the years before the War. It was in the introduction to that little book, and I have never forgotten it. The writer, when he wrote the passage, did not envisage the Great War nor the Russian Revolution at the end of the War, but this is what he wrote:
The twentieth century will be the century of the Russian. By the time the twentieth century has run its course we shall have in the area called Russia an aggregation of some 300,000,000 of human beings.
I know that mere numbers do not matter very much, but there are Members of the Government who do attach great importance to numbers in this trade connection. For instance, there is the President of the Board of Trade. I know he is in a difficult position in these days. I know that he is haunted by his Free Trade past and surrounded by die-hard Tories, forcing him into reactionary policies, but sometimes he looks away to the East and sees these teeming millions. I have heard him in this House talk about the anarchy in China and the disastrous consequences of that anarchy to trade and commerce, and he has even looked forward to the day when the anarchy in China will be swept away, when order and peace will come in that distracted country, and when China will be a potential market, vast in extent and able to absorb large quantities of the manufactured goods which we can
produce so freely in this country. There is no anarchy in Russia. There is a population there of 170,000,000 human beings, whose demand for goods will constantly increase in the days that lie ahead. Why not seize the advantage we have at the moment to cater for the needs of these millions of human beings? China at the moment is nearly beyond our reach. Why not seize this opportunity? Why not hasten the making of this trade agreement with Russia?

The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, although haunted by his Free Trade past, has made speeches here in which he seemed to envisage the time when the seven seas would be filled again with busy shipping, and because of that fact I have some little faith in him, if he does not yield to this unseen pressure from somewhere that is holding up the signing of this agreement. The President of the Board of Trade is quite different in some ways from other members of the Government. The Minister of Agriculture, for instance, visualises the time when the last ship will have come home to port, when we shall be making everything that we want in this country, and when shipping and trade will be a thing of the past. So long as that idea is influencing the Government, I can understand that there are people who do not want a trade agreement with Russia, but I do not think that applies to the Secretary of the Overseas Trade Department. At least, I hope it does not.

Consequently may I urge upon the Government the importance of making this Trade Agreement with Russia at the earliest possible moment? Let them not be actuated by secondary matters like the Lena Goldfields and other things that may be behind the scenes. Let them for once think of the engineers on the Clyde and in Lincoln and Gainsborough; let them think of the toolmakers in various towns and cities throughout the length and breadth of this country, and I am certain that a trade agreement——An hon. Member mentions the herring fishermen. Let me put in a word for the hon. Member, who will be putting it in for himself later, no doubt. I would gladly see herring going to Russia in considerable quantities; and I would, in conclusion, urge on His Majesty's Ministers
to make this Trade Agreement which in the end, when it is signed and working, will be to the mutual satisfaction of two great peoples.

4.54 p.m.

Mr. JOHN WILMOT: I beg to second the Amendment.

I think there is very little to add to what was said by the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), who appeared to be speaking in favour of the Motion, but was, I am sure, really speaking in favour of the Amendment; and those of us in whose names the Amendment stands are indebted to him for the powerful arguments that he put forward as to the necessity for carrying out the policy envisaged in the Amendment. I was not at all sure that the Mover of the Motion, the hon. Member for North Lanark (Mr. Anstruther-Gray), was really desirous of securing a trade agreement, and perhaps some of his hon. Friends will tell us later what he had in mind. I think the time has come when Members on all sides of this House should put away their political prejudices and consider this thorny business of Anglo-Russian trade as a trade and economic matter. We all desire to adjust the present unsatisfactory balance of trade and that that trade, both in imports and exports, should be vastly extended, but the cause of the unsatisfactory balance and the large excess of imports into Britain from Russia over exports out of Britain to Russia is the fact that there is no satisfactory trading arrangement.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why the same condition, in general terms, prevailed when the Socialist Government were in power, and there was what they regarded as a satisfactory trade agreement?

Mr. WILMOT: I shall be pleased to deal with that point a little later. It arises from the fact that owing to the unsatisfactory arrangements at present and the unsatisfactory series of events that have taken place with regard to Russian trade, there are not adequate credit facilities, which, if they did exist, would adjust this unsatisfactory balance. We have always to remember that Russia is a country of vast extent, primitive in many ways, and being developed, as South America was developed, as the hon. Mem-
ber opposite pointed out, but with this difference, that we are granting to Russia no long-term loans such as were granted to South America. The capital development of a primitive country has always been carried on by long-term lendings from the industrialist countries of Europe, and Great Britain's financial as well as her industrial supremacy has very largely been built up, as the hon. Member opposite pointed out, by a combination of foreign long-term lending and the supply of capital goods. It is the absence of long-term credit facilities to Russia which makes it essential that, in that absence, there should be short-term facilities.

It is no good pretending that Russia desires to sell her produce in British markets at knock-out prices because she enjoys doing it. Russia is under the necessity of securing foreign currency to meet her indebtedness, and the only method by which she can secure that foreign currency is to secure it from the proceeds of the sale of her goods. In this respect it is no use talking about tariffs, because so long as the absence of longterm credit facilities exists, Russia will be bound to supply herself with currency to meet her debts, at whatever price she is forced to sell her produce. I think it is necessary, having regard to the effects of the sale of commodities at unduly low prices, to have regard to the effect of the lack of credit facilities on that part of the difficulty. The essential thing is that Anglo-Russian trade arrangements should be got down to a trading level and that we should shut the door once and for all on these periodic political disturbances. There was the Arcos raid, there was the embargo, and then there was the blow-up and bother over some cock-and-bull story about notes coming from a bank being found on gunmen; and every year or two we get an interruption and a pulling down of all the bases which have been established with regard to Anglo-Russian trade.

Sir W. DAVISON: Whose fault?

Mr. WILMOT: It is everybody's fault. The real fault lies in the fact that two nations who have economic systems which are diametrically different, but who nevertheless need to trade with each other. We need to trade with Russia every bit as much as Russia needs to trade with us, and if you ask whose fault
it is, I answer that the fault lies in a failure to understand that trade has got to be done, and however difficult it may be, some economic and reasonable financial basis has got to be laid down. When the embargo was put on and the agreement was broken, what happened? It meant that the orders for British manufactured goods which would otherwise have been placed in this country were placed abroad, but it is interesting to remark that those orders for foreign-made goods were financed with British money in the City of London, and the only effect of the embargo was to raise the rate of the financing and to ensure that British funds were employed in granting credit to Russia, for the purpose of finding work not for British workmen, but for Italian workmen, and bills of exchange drawn on the Russian Government and endorsed by Italian banks were current coin in the discount market in the City. Very large sums were employed in discounting bills in the City of London in payment of goods manufactured in Italy, Czechoslovakia, and elsewhere.

The view which this House seems to take, that Russia is some sort of pariah with whom no business can be done, is not shared by business people. The City is full of people who run after Russian business when they can get it, and the only effect of the political disturbances is to raise the profit on the business which they do. There is the remarkable arrangement which was come to, very largely as a result of a refusal to provide the orthodox trade facilities, whereby the Russians managed to unfreeze the frozen German credits for British factors—a most remarkable transaction where the Russians received payment for their goods in blocked marks which could not otherwise be realised. Such curious backdoor methods are the natural result of refusing to put Russian trade on the same sort of basis as any other trade. My belief is that the best thing would be a system of long-term loans to Russia because in the long run it would be to our advantage, and we should get a better deal that way than by these short-term arrangements.

I would like to ask the Minister when he takes part in the Debate to tell us just what the Government have in mind with regard to this agreement. I believe it is true that the Lena Goldfields diffi-
culty has been got out of the way; it would be a monstrous thing if a dispute with the Lena Goldfields were used as an excuse to hold up the Trade Agreement. Why should we take a different view with regard to the Lena-Russia dispute, than we do with regard to Cosach Bonds, Mexican tramways or German bonds, or any other bonds that are in default. If we are going to hold up trading relations with every country which is in default in its indebtedness we shall cease trading altogether. We are anxious that these things should be settled and that there should be an adjustment in the balance of trade, but the best way to secure a settlement of these difficulties is to get our trading relations on to a normal basis as soon as possible. My hope is that it will be possible within the next few days to get an agreement with Russia which will provide a long-term arrangement and give us a three-part agreement which will last for some years so that everybody will know where they are in dealing with Russia and so that the whole business will not be subject to fluctuations and alarms and excursions—a three-part agreement having regard to the essentials of the business, namely, the imports, the exports and the credits. If we can get that done, and if we can come to a reasonable trading agreement on these three main points, much of our troubles will disappear and we shall find in Russia and Russia will find in us a satisfactory trading partner to our mutual advantage.

5.4 p.m.

Mr. MALLALIEU: I apologise for inflicting my views on this question upon the House, because I cannot profess to be an expert in any sense, either on Russian affairs or on the large questions of trade which are involved in this discussion. I confess it is rather because I am bewildered by some of the statements about the balance of trade which I have heard that I wish to put what appears to me, as a completely inexperienced person in these matters, a view upon the figures as presented by the Board of Trade. I hope that when the Minister joins in the Debate he will put me right if I am wrong on some of the figures and some of the deductions which I try to draw from them. For the 10 years, 1921 to 1930, the adverse balance between Great Britain and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has been some-
where in the neighbourhood of £100,000,000. From that fact the unwary—in which description I must include the mover of this Motion—would deduct that Russia sells to us just so much more than we sell to her.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: The figures in those 10 years show that Russia had a trade balance of something like two to one in her favour. The position about which I complained in my speech is that during the last six months of last year the balance in Russia's favour was no less than six to one.

Mr. MALLALIEU: I will come at a later stage to the last six months, but apparently I have interpreted the hon. Member aright when I said that he would deduct from those figures that Russia sold to us in that period £100,000,000 worth more goods than we sold to her. During the same period, apparently, the adverse balance of trade between Canada and this country was no less than £295,000,000. An even more staggering figure is the adverse balance between this country and the United States which was £1,891,000,000.

Mr. MACLAY: Is the hon. Member including invisible exports?

Mr. MALLALIEU: I am taking the visible, direct transactions. Although there are these large adverse balances with Canada and with the United States, we have never had a murmur that there should be prohibition or anything in the nature of prohibition of the trade between this country and Canada or even betwen this country and the United States.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The adverse balance between the United States and this country has been heavily reduced as the result of the policy of the Government.

Mr. MALLALIEU: That does not alter my point. I concede that for one reason or another the figures have changed in the last few years. During 1932 there was still a visible adverse balance of £9,000,000 with Russia and in the first nine months of 1933 it was some £7,000,000. I wish to point out that there is still such a thing as indirect trade, and without wishing to dilate upon the benefits of indirect trade to this country I will, if the House will allow me, quote
a statement by the City Editor of the "Times" on this subject, in which he says:
In no small part, the abnormal unemployment in this country is to be attributed to the absence of Russia from the economy and comity of nations.… The direct trade may not be important, but the indirect trade is just as important to this country as to those immediately concerned.
I do not dissent from that. On the contrary, I endorse it. I do not think there is any magic in the balance of trade being exactly equal, and I can see very serious inconveniences from attempting to arrange that it should be so. If these figures are those commonly accepted as showing the correct reflection of the trade position between this country and other countries, it may be interesting for such persons as are ignorant on these subjects, as I am, to examine what they purport to show. I do not wish to attack the Board of Trade for their figures because I think they are accurate. What I criticise is the deductions which are drawn from those figures by persons of the unwary class. There is absolutely nothing in the Board of Trade figures, as far as I can see, to reflect the effect upon the position of trade between this country and Russia of freights paid to British shippers by Russians who use our ships, of storage and packing charges, and of dock charges. I believe it to be a fact that all Russian cargoes all over the world are insured in London or in this country. As far as I know, there is nothing about all that in these figures which relate to visible balances; and yet, of course, they are all items of income to somebody in this country and ought, therefore, to be shown in a correct reflection of the position of trade between this country and the Soviet Union.

London being the great market of the world for some purposes, Russia very frequently orders in London goods to be shipped direct from the country of origin to London. All this involves a commission for someone in London. That is, again, income to this country which is not reflected in the figures. As an example of that, I would refer to Egyptian cotton or Indian tea, large quantities of which are bought by the Soviet Union in London. I do not think it would be far wrong to say, taking
these considerations into account, that the adverse balance would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of £30,000,000, and not £100,000,000. If one takes, again, the re-export from this country of imports from Russia to this country, it is probable that in the 10 years even that £30,000,000 would be wiped out. I do not profess to be an expert, but if these things are not correct, I hope the Minister will correct me. I think that if there be this bogey of unbalanced trade between countries, the bogey lives in Canada, and should be tackled there, and not in the Soviet Union. The fact that it is tackled in the Soviet Union leads me to believe, as the House rather inferred from the speech of the mover of the Motion, that there were political rather than economic motives behind the Government's lack of energy in the matter of having a trade treaty with Russia.

The Government should not allow their policy to be dictated by any foreign country, or even any Dominion of the British Empire. I think that by now it is exceedingly probable that they are ashamed of the agreement they allowed themselves to make with Canada on the subject of the frustration of preferences. I do not think there is any evidence of any such frustration as is claimed by Mr. Bennett to have taken place, yet under the agreement, if I read it aright, his view is the one which must prevail. But I have no doubt that that very clause has been a subject of great difficulty in the negotiations which are still dragging on between this Government and Russia. Already the Government have by one means or another insisted upon a reduction of the amount of Russian timber brought into this country by the British distributors of Russian timber to the tune, I believe, of something like 850,000 standards in one year.

If that be so, and if it be the fact that the new Russian agreement involves a rough balance, visible I suppose, between the trade of the two countries, and insists upon it, we come to this position, that we are reducing the purchases of timber from Russia by a stated amount, 850,000 standards, I think. Under the new agreement Russia would be obliged to purchase goods in this country to an equivalent value if they were allowed to sell the same quantity of timber as be-
fore. Let the House consider the effect on the herring industry if, as I understand, the Russians would have to purchase in this country the equivalent value of 850,000 more standards of timber. Why, that one item alone would put the herring industry on its feet. The Canadians complained so bitterly that the price of timber from Russia was uneconomically low that now the consumers of timber in this country have to pay no less than £2 a standard more. Of course, the Russian exporters were quite willing to oblige, and they put up their prices, although they knew they could sell at profit to themselves at £2 a standard less than the price at which they are now selling.

I think that the Ottawa Agreement, so far as Russia is concerned, so far as the frustration of preference is concerned, should be got rid of by this country at the first possible opportunity as a practical measure towards setting trade going again between this country and Russia. If the Government were more concerned with the expansion of trade than with its contraction, things would go very much better for this country. The Government are apt to tell us on these benches that it is a mere platitude to say that trade abroad must be expanded as a remedy for our present economic ills. It is a platitude, but like many other platitudinous truths it has not sunk into the minds of the present Government. Here, I submit, is a good practical suggestion. Let us get an agreement with Russia regardless of any political motives which may tend to make it hang fire. Do not let the mere desire to save the face of the Canadian Prime Minister with his own producers, or any such factor as the privilege of allowing our Embassy representatives in Moscow to eat expensive foods in front of the rather more simply fed population of that town, hold up an agreement. Let us get an agreement as soon as possible, with economic considerations alone in view. That is all that the Amendment is asking the Government to do, and on those grounds I would like to support it.

5.19 p.m.

Mr. MACLAY: Personally, I should have liked to see the Amendment added to the original Motion rather than moved as a substitute for it, because I find that
I am in agreement with both, but it lies out of my power to secure that fusion, and I will detain the House, therefore, for only a few moments with two main points. The first is that negotiations ought to be hurried on to as early a conclusion as possible. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who is to reply for the Government must be getting tired of this question, and it seems to me the whole point of the Debate is to impress upon him that there is restlessness in the country over the long delay. The second point is that when he comes to reconsider the question of credits to Russia, he should do his utmost to see that they are as large as possible and for as long a period as possible compatible with the risk, which he and his Department are best able to gauge. We have been negotiating for seven months, roughly, and those of us who come from industrial areas have engineering trades "at us" all the time asking whether this Trade Agreement is any nearer fruition, and we have really no answer to give except to say that we hope it will shortly be concluded. Therefore, I ask the Minister to give us some hope, or, at any rate, some reason that we can give for this long delay.

It is almost unnecessary to mention again the question of the Lena Goldfields, because I honestly cannot conceive of the Government holding up the Trade Agreement because of that question. It would cause the greatest resentment in the country if it were suspected that such a matter were holding up a general trade agreement. Private traders have lost in other countries a good deal more than is owing to the Lena Goldfields, and yet trade agreements have not been ended on that account. Too many extraneous matters have been brought into this question of a Trade Agreement with Russia. The internal government of Russia is none of our business. If Russia starts trying to impose Communism on the United Kingdom, we know how to act, but, so far as her own Government is concerned, I do not think we can make its political complexion a question to be considered relative to a trade agreement. I had the opportunity of spending one short month in Russia last year, and I was amazed at the feeling among the Russians with whom I spoke that everyone in this country was hostile to
Russia and wanted her downfall. I do not honestly think that that represents British feeling, to-day at any rate. It may have been a feeling at the time of the revolution. One has different feelings in a time of revolution from those one has afterwards, when time has mellowed things.

It is impossible to impress upon Russians at the moment that Britain is friendly disposed towards Russia, and not only Britain but every other capitalist country. The ordinary Russian person has no chance of reading outside newspapers and knowing the truth. Every statement made in this House which can he twisted so as to be hostile to Russia is broadcast across the Russian continent in an effort to show how the capitalist class is doing its best to bring about the downfall of Russia. It would be greatly to the benefit of this country if we could show that we were doing nothing except to exercise as friendly a spirit as possible towards Russia and to try to get as much trade going as passible. We know the dangers we run. We know that the tactics of Russia were to make propaganda for a Communist revolution, but that they were a failure, and that therefore they are now proceeding to try to make a successful Communistic State and in that way to spread Communism over the world. That is a risk which we must take, but it is not likely to come in our day, and I would not let any fear of that stop our trade with that country.

I suggest that the Russian Trade Agreement should be carried out exactly as an agreement with any other country. The only two exceptions in that respect are, first, that the Russian Government have sole control of entry into and exit from their country, which makes many technical difficulties; and, secondly, that we are often apt to think of Russia as a European country, whereas really she is, as someone has said, the most western of eastern countries rather than the most eastern of western countries. It does make a difference if we bear that in mind when we are discussing Russia. It has been said that Britain has a strong position, and I hope we shall use that strong position to the utmost, in the same way as would any other country.

I agree with the last speaker regarding the balance of trade. A great deal has been made of the balance of trade.
I do not agree with what the proposer said. I do not think we could get anywhere near a perfect balance of trade with Russia. The Department know very well that the disposal of Russian credits alone makes that almost impossible. I do not think we can hope at the present moment to obtain a perfect balance of trade, though it is important to keep that point in mind, and to press it as far as possible. I would respectfully ask the Government, when they are arranging this Trade Agreement, to watch that they do not, by trying to help our exporters, correspondingly hurt our importers and consumers. That is very apt to happen in trade agreements. One group of people is helped, and then, after a year or two, we find that almost as much harm has been done to another group of people. I am certain the Government will bear that in mind. What I ask is that they should hurry the negotiations as far as lies in their power.

I come to my last point. An impartial observer going about Russia and remembering the vast number of unemployed in this country and noting the vast amount of work to be done and machinery required in Russia, would naturally have a vision of some co-operation between the two countries. It is lack of credit which to a very great extent is holding up that co-operation. Practically every other nation in the world but Russia is to a large extent self-sufficing, and we are kept out of other markets because other nations can make goods for themselves. Russia is one of the few markets with great possibilities which is left, but the possibilities seem to be limited by what the Government estimate to be the risk of credits. There is any amount of trade for our engineers if satisfactory credits could be arranged. As has been said by one hon. Member, the whole railway system of Russia needs renovating, if only we could get some means of arranging credits. The question is, What do the Government consider a wise risk? No one who has studied Russia will doubt that the Russian Government, if they remain in power, will not willingly default. So far as one can judge, those in charge of affairs in Moscow are competent business men, if they are nothing else, and therefore our only risk
is how long will the Russian Government remain stable. Inside that question I would ask His Majesty's Government to stretch the commercial risk as far as possible, in order to make the credits as long as possible and for as large sums as possible, because to my mind Russia is one of the few countries left which can provide employment for the workers of this country in supplying machines and goods. I ask once again that the hon. Gentleman who is to reply for the Government will give us some more satisfactory answer than he has given so far as to what is holding up this agreement.

5.29 p.m.

Sir W. DAVISON: I have been in the House all the afternoon and have heard every speech, and all the speeches, with the exception of that of the Mover of the Motion, are so out of keeping with what one knows has happened recently that I felt that I had been wafted away to Alice in Wonderland. I can understand the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. C. Brown) accepting M. Litvinov's arguments and theories as to why relations are not as good as they might be between the Soviet authorities and ourselves, but I cannot understand my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) in what he said. So far as I know, we all agree that it would be most desirable to have good relations between Russia and this country—I have never heard any difference of opinion about that—but the surprising thing is that the hon. Gentleman opposite, and apparently also the hon. Member for East Aberdeen, suggest that the reason for any faulty relations lies with this Government and our funny ways, and not with the idiosyncrasies of the Soviet.

The hon. Member for East Aberdeen began his remarks on this point by saying that it would be most desirable if a great newspaper like the "Times" had a representative in Moscow. Why have they not a representative there? Because the "Times" representative would not be allowed to report freely upon what he saw and what was going on. You do not suppose that a great newspaper like the "Times" desires to have an enormous country like Russia cut off from news coming to the paper. Of course it does not. It would be only too glad to have a
representative in Russia. No wonder that I said that I feel as though I were with Alice in Wonderland. Why has the "Times" no representative in Russia? For the simple reason that such a representative would not be allowed to report what he saw.

Hon. Members suggested that it would be a mad thing to hang up a Trade Agreement in order to assert the rights of some British citizens whose property had been taken away from them. I will not say that I have never heard that argument in this House, but I have never heard it from the Conservative benches before, and it is a most monstrous suggestion. Another hon. Member said that this matter was no different from bondholders being involved in a default. It is very different indeed. I will give an answer to the hon. Member for Mansfield in regard to the facts about Lena Goldfields in a moment. I agree that where people invest money in a foreign concern and the thing goes phut, we should not rush in and make demands, but when our citizens go to a foreign country at the invitation of that country and invest money there, and then have their capital confiscated without any return being made to them, it is unquestionably the duty of the British Government, before entering into another agreement with that same Government, to see that our own citizens are protected. We realised that, in regard to the engineers of Metropolitan Vickers. Thank God the British Government are not so emasculate as to let our own citizens be murdered in a foreign country. We stood up for our own citizens and said: "These are British citizens, and we will have nothing more to do with you until these men are released." We very soon secured their release. Although the British Government will not allow British citizens to be murdered——

Mr. KIRKWOOD: On a point of Order. I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman when there were British citizens murdered in Russia?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): That is not a point of Order.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: They were not murdered.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman must hope for his chance to reply. What he has raised is not a point of Order.

Sir W. DAVISON: —apparently they do not look upon the seizing and robbing of property in the same light. I would like to know what is the object of this Trade Agreement. Why is it required? We have heard from the hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion—and this was stated in the House yesterday afternoon by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade—that imports from Russia during December totalled £1,317,000 and exports from the United Kingdom to Russia £216,000. What is the object? We are told that the Russians cannot buy herring or machinery, but they have an enormous trade balance in this country. Why cannot they spend their trade balance? What are we doing to prevent them from buying herring? An hon. Gentleman apparently suggested that we should feed herring on sawdust, or something of that kind. That is another Alice-in-Wonderland remark. Why do we want this Trade Agreement with a country that has such a large trade balance in this country? We are only too glad to trade with Russia. Some of us do not like their system of government, but we recognise that it is established there, and I do not believe that any Member of this House would interfere with it in any circumstances. We say that we want to be sure that when we have dealings with that country those dealings will be carried out.

Coming to the Lena Goldfields: The contract was entered into by the very same Government that is negotiating the Trade Agreement to-day, and if the Trade Agreement is signed, it will be signed by the same people who signed the agreement with Lena Goldfields. As I have said in the course of questions in this House, "What is the use of entering into any agreement with people who, a few years ago, signed an agreement with your own nationals and have declined to carry it out because it did not suit them?" That is my argument, put forward not because I dislike the Russian Government or anything else; it is a matter of common sense. The hon. Member who moved the Motion asked, "If this Lena business is capable of arrangement by negotiation, why was that negotiation not started long ago?" and I said I would tell him. I will tell him. The whole story was told to the House by the Lord President of the Council, in reply to questions from myself on 13th
March of last year. He recited the whole story, and you will find it in the OFFICIAL REPORT for that day.

The right hon. Gentleman began by pointing out that in 1930 this arbitration was held, in accordance with the terms of the agreement. Russia, after appointing a representative upon the tribunal, withdrew that representative. The court was appointed in accordance with the terms of the agreement, and the sum of, roughly, £13,000,000—a little less than that—was given by way of award. Then the Lord President of the Council continued by telling how the Soviet Government
suggested that they should meet representatives of the company in Berlin with a view to arriving at a settlement of the case by direct negotiation. These negotiations, however, which began in July, 1931, broke down in September of the same year, since the company's representatives, though willing, for the sake of an early and satisfactory settlement, to accept a great reduction in the amount of compensation awarded by the arbitration court, were unable to obtain from the Soviet representatives anything beyond a purely derisory offer of £800,000
in settlement. The company were then requested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Clay Cross (Mr. A. Henderson) who was then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—I think he was, but anyway, the company were requested by the Government—to go to Berlin. They stayed in Berlin for three months negotiating, and at the end of it the Soviet said: "We will pay you £800,000 in exchange for the arbitral award of £13,000,000. The Lord President of the Council went on:
It was nevertheless felt desirable, in order to explore every possibility of effecting an amicable settlement, to authorise His Majesty's Ambassador at Moscow to discuss unofficially with the then President of the Chief Concessions Committee, Monsieur Kameneff, the prospects of a settlement at a sum of £3,500,000, representing approximately the proved capital losses of the company"—
that is to say, all their interest and the value of their claims and their organisation, was to be wiped out. Simply what their losses were, their capital losses. Then the Lord President went on to say that these efforts also proved abortive. Hon. Members say that it is very unfortunate, when this Trade Agreement is greatly desired by both parties, that it should be hung up by this Lena matter, and ask if we cannot
arrange it in some way. The Lord President of the Council, in his reply to me, sets out at length that it was the fault of the Soviet.
One last opportunity of settling the case seemed to have arrived when the Soviet Ambassador in London represented last month that it would be unfortunate if public agitation on this question
should take place in this country on this matter, and
my right hon. Friend then informed His Excellency that it lay with the Soviet Government to prevent that danger by offering an early and satisfactory settlement, which would effectively contribute to that spirit of confidence in the relations between the two countries which it is the object of the negotiations to promote."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March, 1933; col. 1596, Vol. 275.]
Finally, the Lord President of the Council told me that unfortunately those negotiations also came to an end, and the Government repeated their claim on behalf of the company, that of the arbitral award of £12,965,000.

So far from holding up this company to—what shall I say?—approbrium, as has been done in a great many speeches to-day, the company's reasonableness is extraordinary. I have just made inquiries, since it was stated that the company were all foreigners. I had no idea how the company were made up, but I am told that 80 per cent. of the shareholders are English. I know nothing about who they are, and, even if they were foreigners, this is a British company, established in this country, and a British Government should protect foreigners who invest their money in a British company. I have no interest in it; I have not one farthing in it. I never heard of the company until this matter came up. The people with whom I have negotiated have been British to the backbone—very much British, and as I say, even if they were foreigners, if they invest in a British company they are entitled to the protection of the British Government.

The company have very great cause to complain of the way in which they have been treated. I said that the Lord President of the Council told me in March that the British Government had reiterated their demand for the payment of the arbitral award of £12,965,000. Without any consultation with the company,
and in the course of the present negotiations with the Board of Trade, in order to facilitate the signing of this Trade Agreement, the British Government have told the Russian Government, that they, the British Government, will advise the Lena Goldfields Company to send yet another delegation to Moscow to negotiate, and that they, the British Government, will advise the Lena Goldfields Company substantially to reduce the already minimum claim put forward of £3,500,000, which is simply the actual capital losses of the company. The British Government said to the Soviet, without consulting the company, that they had advised the company to do that. That is not what we would expect—a British Government not standing up for its own nationals, and telling a foreign Government that they were advising the company, in regard to the claim where there was an arbitral award of £13,000,000, to take less than £3,500,000 in order to settle the matter and pay the capital losses that had been incurred.

I earnestly hope that we may have an assurance from the Secretary to the Department of the Overseas Trade that a limit will be put upon these negotiations. It is quite clear that M. Litvinov desired Lena Gold Fields to be taken out of the way, so that this urgently desired Trade Agreement should be put through at the earliest possible moment. The British Government have all the cards in their hands in this matter. If the five-year or the 10-year plan is ever to materialise to any extent, the Soviet Government must have the use of the British market. It is therefore absurd for the British Government not to formulate just demands for the protection of their nationals.

I have spoken about Lena Gold Fields. I must now put in a word for the claims of British nationals who have been robbed of their property in Russia—nothing political about it at all—simply robbed of their property. When I raised this matter in the House of Commons on 10th July, I asked the Foreign Secretary what Clause was going to be put into this proposed new Trade Agreement to protect the claims of British nationals, which had been under negotiation for so many years, and whether he had received a memorandum from the association of those claimants. In reply the Foreign Secretary said:
I have considered the memorandum, and the association were informed on the 20th March last that it was the intention of His Majesty's Government to make it clear in the course of the commercial negotiations with the Soviet Government that they maintain and assert British claims; that the negotiation of a permanent treaty with the Soviet Government must be accompanied by a satisfactory settlement of these claims; and that any commercial agreement made pending a final disposal of the question must be regarded as being of a temporary and transitional character."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th July, 1933; col. 736, Vol. 280.]
I want to know from the Minister whether that is still the policy of the Government and whether he will see that a definite period is put to this temporary agreement, so that these claims may not hang on indefinitely without being dealt with. It is idle to say that they will be postponed until a final agreement is made. Does anyone suppose that the Soviet Government, when they have got a temporary agreement, unless it includes a clause saying that it will only run for, say three or six months, will ever negotiate for a final agreement, by which they have so much to lose? It is trifling with the House of Commons and with these unfortunate creditors, many of whom are, to my own knowledge, very poor people. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) is as warm-hearted as I am, and, if he knew these people as I do, he would be just as indignant as I am. He is indignant when unfortunate men on the Clyde are out of work, and if anything can be done for them he will do it, and so will I. These are not wealthy people. There is a man in my constituency who was a bank clerk in Petrograd. He had some £70 or £80 on deposit, which was all his savings, and that has been taken. There are dozens of cases like that. There is nothing political about the matter at all; it is sheer robbery. British Governments in the past have always stood up for the weak, and have always stood for the British citizen being able to reckon on the strength of Britain to support him, however humble or poor he may be. It would be discreditable for the British Government to sign a paper the counterpart of which will be signed by the very same people who have already repudiated another agreement, until they are sure that these British citizens have been safeguarded.

Nothing changes. I have here the Protocol bearing the signatures "Arthur Henderson" and "V. Dovgalevsky," which was signed on 3rd October, 1929. We shall soon have a White Paper giving an account of the present negotiations, and, as far as I can understand, they are almost identical with the previous ones. The Russians then desired a resumption of relations with the British Government, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Clay Cross was most anxious, and rightly so, that they should come to terms regarding these British creditors before relations were resumed. Again and again he tried to get them to come to some agreement, but they would not do so, and finally he signed a protocol which contained this paragraph:
Negotiations between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics for the settlement of the above-mentioned questions"—
namely, inter alia, the claims of British nationals—
shall take place immediately on the resumption of full relations, including the exchange of Ambassadors.
What was the result? It is true that the negotiations were resumed after a time, and the Goschen Committee was appointed, which sat and argued about these claims for something like 12 months, at the end of which time the Foreign Secretary informed me that the Russian Soviet representatives had not defined their attitude towards the claims. It was not a question of saying that these claims were exorbitant, or too high; there was no question of disputing the claims; but they had not defined their attitude as to whether they would recognise a claim such as that of the bank clerk to whom I have referred, and others.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I know that the hon. Gentleman will be quite fair. He knows that there are counter-claims on the other side.

Sir W. DAVISON: I quite agree. Whether I approve of the counter-claims or not is neither here nor there; of course they are entitled to say, "You claim £250,000,000, and we have claims that we would like to put forward in respect of A, B, C and D." Certainly; but that was not the position. What the Foreign Secretary told me was that they had never defined their attitude, and
the same thing is going on again. M. Litvinov is again behind the scenes, and a very able gentleman he is. I have never had the pleasure of meeting him, though I should like to do so. He is a very able man, and again he is the person behind the scenes now. Anyone who reads Command Paper 3418 of 3rd October, 1929, will see that exactly the same thing is taking place here. I ask the Government, will they assure the House that this time they will not allow themselves to be fooled as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Clay Cross was fooled when he resumed diplomatic relations, but will see that a time limit is fixed regarding these claims and the claim of the Lena Goldfields Company? Personally, I do not think that any such agreement is required. The Russians have a large trade balance in this country, and could quite well purchase any herring that they require. The Government, however, are better judges on that question than I am, but, if it is needed, I would urge them to put a time limit upon it, and say that it shall run for, perhaps, six months, and that, unless it is ratified and a final agreement is arrived at within that time it shall fall to the ground. I would ask for an assurance to this effect, because otherwise the House of Commons, the country, and all those poor people who have suffered so badly will be fooled again.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) said that in Russia British citizens had been murdered under the present regime, and he went on to make references leading to the inference that it was those engineers of Messrs. Vickers, meaning the trial of Messrs. Thornton and Macdonald. I would advise the hon. Member that the less said in this House about that trial the better. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I am asked the question "Why" I will answer it. I have gone carefully over the whole of that trial, the report of which was sent on to me by the Russian Government. It is the fact that this Government interfered in a trial that was going on in another country. It was only because it was Russia that they interfered in the manner that they did—a manner not creditable to this country, which claims that it does not interfere with the internal
management of any other country. They did it in no uncertain fashion in regard to that trial, and it was only because the Russians are so anxious to be at peace with this country that they modified everything that they did in connection with that trial.

Miss HORSBRUGH: Did not hon. Members on those benches urge His Majesty's Government to interfere in another case in Germany, a little after that case?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I do not think the two cases are comparable. A journalist was being harassed by the Hitler Government, and he was a poor man. We were taking the part of a poor man. In the other case it was the opposite; this powerful Government of ours took the part of the rich. The hon. Member for South Kensington made great play with the Lena Goldfields, but everything that was done as far as the Lena Goldfields Company was concerned was under the regime of the Tsar.

Sir W. DAVISON: No. They were there originally under the Tsar. They then left, and they were specially requested by the present Russian Government to return. Having been bitten once, they felt rather shy and they said, "We will only return if you will enter into a special agreement under which, if we are stopped in any way, there shall be an international tribunal"—I think it was to consist of an Englishman, a German and a Russian—"to decide any point of dispute." It was the present Russian Government that they fell foul of.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: My answer is this—I have stated it in the House time and again—that, as far as the past regime was concerned, to get them to come into the War this country agreed that, if Russia would come into the War, we would give Russia Constantinople. I want to know if this Government is prepared to give them that as a quid pro quo for the concession that they require regarding the Lena Goldfields?

The hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Maclay) stated that there would be plenty of work for engineers, and that, that being the case, he is very much in favour of an agreement with Russia at once, but his trouble is as to how long the present system of government in Russia will last.
There need be no fear about that, because it is the most stable government in the world. The Russian Government is the only Government that has held its sway ever since the War—nearly 20 years—without a change. No other Government in the world has a record like that. Behind all this is the fear that, if we give Russia credits, the Russians will not meet their liabilities, that the Government will collapse; but—and this is the most substantial guarantee that any country in the world can give—behind that Government is the whole of Russia. You are not dealing with a private individual; you are dealing with the Russian Government, and the whole wealth of Russia will back whatever Russia transacts in this country or any other country.

The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) said something which I as a Scotsman resent very much. I said at the time that he had no authority for making such a statement. He said that, if it came to a choice between our fishermen and the well-being of this country, he was prepared to sacrifice the fishermen. He had better go and ask the fishermen, because ever since the War there is no section in Britain which has been sacrificed to the same extent, and because of the attitude the Government have taken up regarding Russia the fishermen round our coasts are well nigh starved to death. He went on to try to justify it when I pulled him up, because he knows that he will have to justify his statement when he goes to Aberdeen. No section of the community had such a terrible task put on them in guarding our coasts during the War. They sacrificed everything. They were away for six years and they came back to discover that all their gear and their boats were destroyed and a new race had arisen which had no experience in fishing at all, and they are now left stranded and the Government have thrown them to the wolves.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Does not the hon. Member remember, in fairness to my hon. Friend, that he went on to say that, because the fishermen had rendered such great service to the country in the War, he felt that they had a claim on the Government for special help?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I said he tried to cover up his statement when I pulled him up.

The hon. Member for North Lanarkshire (Mr. Anstruther-Gray) started off in a very strange manner. It was very difficult for me to follow him, because I know he has given the subject some thought and he has been to Russia to see for himself what was going on. He made some very alarming statements which are absolutely contrary to the information that I have. I have never been to Russia, I have been invited by the Russian Government time and time again, but I have always refused to go at their behest or at that of any one associated with them, so that it could never be imputed to me that I got any concession from them. But I am very much interested, because I can see in Russia a great outlet for the work that we can do in this country, and Russia is very anxious to get it. The hon. Member said Russia was a hostile State.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will recollect that the hon. Member withdrew that statement.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Although he withdrew it, he believed it. Am I not allowed to refer to it although he withdrew it?

Mr. SPEAKER: It is no use referring to a statement which has been withdrawn.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The hon. Member went on to say something which, I think, has to be repudiated. He is not the first to say it. The first person I heard stating it in the House was the Lord President of the Council, who, in my hearing said that the natural avenue for trade with Russia was through Germany. I do not believe that. Following that, the hon. Member for North Lanarkshire said that from his experience, having been in contact with engineers and others in Russia, the Russians preferred German and American machinery. I deny that in toto on the authority of the last Ambassador that Russia had here, who informed me that one of the prime reasons why his country was so anxious to deal with us in heavy engineering was a rolling-mill which I helped to produce 30 years ago, and which is the finest mill working in Russia yet. They have had to adapt it to changing conditions,
but the foundation remains intact, and it is a monument to our engineering. The Russians are now anxious to deal with the firm that made it.

It is, therefore, not true that they have any preference for Germany or America as far as the quality of their material is concerned. I am speaking on behalf of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, comprising almost 200,000 organised engineers. We are in a position to state officially that Russia wishes to place orders where she has placed them already in this country, not tapping new firms at all, for machinery of all descriptions. There is no boiler in Germany or elsewhere to compare with those that Babcock and Sterling and Company have produced. There is no plant, on the Russians own admission, to compare with the electric equipment that we have put up, even having regard to the fact that the Russians were forced to take action against British engineers who were in key positions. Even after all that has happened, they state officially to my union that the finest electrical equipment that they have in Russia has come from this country. Further, Russia is very anxious to deal with this country in locomotives, and we are most willing to supply them as far as the workers are concerned. I am astonished that the hon. Member should come out with such strong language.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I never suggested that in my view American or German machinery was in any way comparable with British. I said Russian engineers had told me that, for geographical, industrial and political reasons, they preferred in many cases to use German and American plant to our own and, if the hon. Member will look at German imports into Russia as compared with ours in recent years, he will find that that statement is borne out.

Mr. WALLHEAD: If that is true, I can give the hon. Member my assurance that it is a recent development, because to my own knowledge up to very recently the Russians would always prefer British machinery to that of any other country in the world.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I should be very sorry if the hon. Member thought I was misrepresenting him. I am very glad he
has taken the opportunity to counteract the statement that the Russians prefer German and American engineering work to ours. He has now denied it, and I am quite satisfied.

The idea is abroad that Russia would not meet her liabilities. I want to appeal to the House. I have appealed to practically every Member of the Cabinet privately, because it means so much to us. The hon. Member for North Lanarkshire says that, if you examine the returns of machinery exported from Germany into Russia as against ours, it will prove that his statement is correct. There may be something in it, but it is because this Government has put the screw on so that Russia cannot get orders into this country. It has stopped those orders coming into the country. The firm that I have already mentioned, Messrs. Duncan, Stewart, quoted for forging presses, and Russia was anxious that they should be made on the Clyde. There were four forging presses, two with from 700 to 800 tons of pressure and two with 8,000 tons of pressure. We were anxious to get the two great monster presses, which would have kept the firm employed for two years, but all that we got were the two small presses because, on the authority of Lord Invernairn, they were not able to quote the price that was being given for the German machines. The cost was just the same as for the bare castings, without any machining, and without any workmen's time being placed on them; the Germans quoted so low. Further than that, in order to enable them to do it, the money came from the City. London advanced money to Germany to enable them to cut us out, and the Russians were loth—those are their own words—to give that contract to Germany. Because the price was so low, and because of the hostility of the present régime in Britain, Russia gave the order for those great presses to Germany. They were made by Krupps at Essen. That is what happens to us.

Let us look at Russia. Russia is a great country, a Continent extending from Moscow right away through to Vladivostock over against Japan, 6,000 or 7,000 miles of continuous territory, undeveloped, and with mineral resources second to none in the world waiting to be developed. We have everything that Russia requires. We have skilled men. Russia lacks skilled men. We have tech-
nicians. We are a greatly organised country capable of giving Russia the machinery she requires for the development of her great country. The Russians are anxious to get in contact with us and to keep in friendly relationship with us in order that they may be able to develop their country. Why cannot they do this? This is what this country, this House and this régime have to face. Why do we not trade with Russia? The Chancellor of the Exchequer definitely stated that this House will have to choose sooner or later between Russia and handling our great unemployment problem. Russia is the way out; but in encouraging Russia we shall enable Russia to work out its Socialist system. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has pointed out that they have a great advantage, and that their on-cost is entirely different from ours. There is no private profit made in Russia. Therefore, if they succeed in Russia it will undermine the whole of the capitalist system throughout the world. It is for the Government to decide whether they are to have a way out of their present unemployment troubles or whether they are to continue the present unemployment troubles and keep Russia back to the best of their ability. They have to choose.

The hon. Member for Kinross and West Perth (Duchess of Atholl), time and time again, has spoken in this House in regard to Russia, and, in common working-class Scottish phraseology, she is death on Russia. Time and time again she has made great capital out of slave conditions in Russia. The Noble Lady does not require to go away from the Highlands of her own native land to find conditions as bad as any there are in Russia.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I should be very interested if the hon. Member would indicate where conditions in the Highlands, or anywhere in the United Kingdom, or in the Empire are as bad as conditions in Russia.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I am very sorry to say that it would be the easiest thing in the world for me to do.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Do it then.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: No more independent set of men ever drew the breath of life than those to whom I was referring in my own country, and this Government is going to throw them on to
the public assistance committee. The Secretary of State for Scotland stood at that corner there and replied to me that that was the only way out.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Does the hon. Member realise that in Russia there is neither unemployment benefit nor public assistance committees?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: That is just where it comes in. I raised the question with the Secretary of State for Scotland, and drew his attention to the fact that there is no assistance for fishermen when they are thrown out of employment. They have to go for parish relief, thus reducing my race to the level of mere beggars. It used to be one of the outstanding features in my country that rather than ask for public assistance they would beg, and now they are doing it systematically. No one knows that better than the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), if he had the courage to stand up against the powers that be and state the truth.

Mr. BOOTHBY: The hon. Member has now deliberately misrepresented me three times. I must ask him to withdraw a statement which he has twice made in this House that I am prepared to see the fishing fleet sacrificed. I give an unqualified denial of such a statement, and categorically deny that the condition of the fishermen resembles in any way the condition of the people in Russia.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: That may be all right, but the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow morning will show the hon. Member for East Aberdeen that he stated that if he had a choice to make between this country and the fishermen he would sacrifice the fishermen.

Captain RAMSAY: Surely the logical conclusion to be drawn from what the hon. Member is saying, is he himself would sacrifice the whole to save the part; whereas my hon. Friend merely states that, if it came to a pinch, he would sacrifice the part in order to save the whole.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: It would be all right for me to say that I would sacrifice myself. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen could say that he would sacrifice himself if he liked, but he had no right to say that he would sacrifice them. He knows that they have been compelled to sacrifice so much, and time
and time again he has stated their case well because he knows that they are being sacrificed so much. I was speaking about the Noble Lady. She makes a great plea about the slave conditions in the timber industry, and that Russia would not meet its liabilities. Her husband—his Lordship—[HON. MEMBERS: "His Grace."] I will not quarrel about titles. I know him fairly well. He is only a man to me, the same as the rest of you. It is not so long ago that he went out to Brazil and the Argentine. What for? Because in the Argentine they were not meeting their liabilities. Was any question raised in this House of breaking off negotiations? No fear. What did they do? In order to keep in with the Argentine they sent out the Prince of Wales to make friends with the Argentine. Would you send the Prince of Wales to Russia? [Laughter.] And why not? Here are greater natural resources lying untapped and a population of over 160,000,000 waiting to get the material that we can supply, and yet no attempt is made to make friends with them. There is nothing but hostility. I respect my opponents if they are honest about matters. Let them be honest and tell the people in Britain that we will not trade with Russia because there is a Socialist regime in Russia. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is because they fear Socialism, and it is nothing else.

We have the most powerful Government in the world at the moment without a doubt. They tell us in this House as they do all over the country, in the Press, and in other ways that we have got round the corner. We have stabilised our financial position. No country in the world has come out of this crisis in such a way, say the great orators of this Government. We are practically one of the most powerful countries in the world and are prepared to extend the hand of friendship to, and to assist, all the other countries, for instance, Austria. We have also thrown money into Germany, our late enemy. They were never an enemy of mine. No fellow-man is an enemy of mine. They were the enemy of the present regime, who have said time and time again, "Never again will we have anything to do with Germany." They would trade with Old Nick as long as he did not interfere with their private profit. Rent and profit are the gods that the
powerful classes of this country worship night and day. If they were honest enough to tell the people of this country that they are not going to trade with Russia because Russia is a menace to capitalism we should know what to do. Until then we must just do the best we can. It is terrible for me, because I realise the serious plight of members of my union, which has spent £10,000,000 in the last 10 years in supporting the unemployed. We have done everything we could possibly do, investigated every case, and negotiated with employers. We have kept back any trouble—there never was more peace in our industry—in order that there should be no industrial war in this country, with a view to trying to get round the terrible times that we are in.

The workers are the only section of the community up to now that has made some sacrifice. The difficulty is not a matter of sacrificing a few pounds or of being kind to an individual, or of asking the Government to give concessions here and there—they will do that—but to sacrifice their individual ego, to sacrifice their ideas of how society should be run. That is a most difficult thing for us to ask the Government to do, but they have to choose, because the unemployed in this country are not going to lie idle and know perfectly well that Russia is prepared to give our country work, and yet the Trade Agreement with them is delayed. The Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade knows a great deal about this subject. No one knows it better because his firm—it is his firm when he is not in the Government—have done trade with Russia time and again. One of the departments of Colvilles, of Clyde Bridge, on three different occasions last year was kept running solely on Russian orders. Had it not been for those orders the men would have been on the streets, unemployed. I could give innumerable instances. The hon. and gallant Member knows that there are ships to be built, tramp steamers, with the definite object of carrying Russian grain and timber. Let me say a few words about timber.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Let somebody else have a chance.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: It is well that the House should know of it. I had a letter
from one of my constituents, a Tory, an opponent of mine in Dumbarton. He had taken on the job of contracting for a housing scheme in Greenock, but between the time when the schedule was drawn up and the starting of the work the present Government came into power and cut off Russia. The Trade Agreement with Russia was broken, and McDougall of Dumbarton had then to be asked to use wood coming from Canada. The firm found that they could not use Canadian wood because it was too expensive. My constituent then wrote to me and asked me to negotiate with the President of the Board of Trade, which I did, to see if the Government would make up the difference of the money that was going to be charged if Canadian wood was used instead of Russian timber, which had been scheduled. The President of the Board of Trade—I have his letter—replied to me, in writing, to the effect that this question would require to be decided by the Crown lawyers. At the present time negotiations are going on between that particular builder and the town council of Greenock on the question who is to pay the difference in price caused by the change over from Russian to Canadian timber.

I could give innumerable cases where housing schemes and other work schemes are being held up in different parts of the country because there is no trade agreement with Russia. If the Government wish to justify their position they have an opportunity to extend the right hand of fellowship to a country that will give us work. America has already stepped in, America and other countries are cutting us out and they will continue to do so unless the House can make the Government change their attitude of approach to Russia. The way which the Prime Minister proposed in 1924 was "friendly." He said: "I approach this Russian question in this fashion. I say to Russia, Let us shake hands and be friends, and now that we are friends, we will discuss terms." I suggest to the Government that that is the line of approach to take now.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. HARBORD: I suppose this is the last opportunity we shall have of speaking on this subject before the ratification of a new Trade Agreement with Russia. I am particularly concerned for the lot
of the fishermen and all who are engaged in that great industry, and I hope that the spokesman of the Government will be able to give a favourable response to the questions that I propose to put to him. I hope that the claims of the fishermen and the fact that their livelihood is at stake will be considered with due care in the framing of a new Trade Agreement and that as a result a market will be provided for their fish. The importance of this question will be seen when I mention that prior to 1914 the Russian Empire, as it then was, absorbed three-fourths of the total herring catch of the United Kingdom. To-day the quantity of our catch absorbed by Russia is a negligible quantity. We are very anxious for a return to more favourable conditions than those which exist now and which have existed for some years.

The fishermen year after year have suffered from adverse seasons and poor fishing. In the last autumn fishing Great Yarmouth and the sister port of Lowestoft finished very badly, although I think the Yarmouth boats did a little better than the Scottish boats. Many of the Scottish boats went back with earnings in no sense sufficient to maintain them during the dead winter months. It is not a question merely of the failure of one fishing season but largely a question of the failure of the export market, over which the fishermen have no control. The Scottish fishermen in common with the English catchers have tried to avoid some of the difficulties by making the fishing season shorter. The last fishing season started later and finished up sooner, in order to avoid a glut and the stocking of the English markets with unsaleable herring; but despite this course the catch of the fishing fleets in the great ports largely remains unsold. It is a very serious position and I hope the Government will be able to give us some message to-night which will alleviate the prevailing mental distress and lift the pall of darkness and disappointment from that great industry.

I am anxious that we should avoid anything that will separate us in coming to a Trade Agreement with Russia. While I am confident that the Government will weigh up the relative claims of all industries, I am sure they will weigh in the balance the serious plight of the fishermen and the fact that the fishing season
has been a failure—that many of those concerned are bankrupt and that the men who remain are tottering on the verge of ruin. That is not an exaggerated picture and it can be confirmed, and I believe it is being confirmed, by inquiries at the fishing ports in the United Kingdom. If it is a question of the Lena Goldfields that is obstructing a settlement, that must not be allowed to weigh unduly in the balance and to hold up any longer the Trade Agreement. There is a growing belief in the House and in the country that that is the obstacle, and there is solid reason for that belief.

The Government are a National Government and while they have a duty to protect their nationals, they have an imperative duty to consider the livelihood of the people of this country and the fact that thousands of fishermen are unable to make headway or to pursue their calling. Therefore, they are in duty bound to protect their interests. The Government must bear in mind the great debt that the country owed to the fishermen during the War, how they hazarded their lives in mine laying, mine sweeping and other ways in order to keep the seas free for our cargo ships and help us to win through the great War. I hope that the answer to-night will be such that the fishermen will feel satisfied that their claims have been and are being considered and that the chances are that within the next two weeks a Trade Agreement will be satisfactorily settled between the two great countries of England and Russia.

6.44 p.m.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: The hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Harbord) has spoken with his usual eloquence and warmth of interest in the people he represents. It is no new thing to see the hon. Member moved to the uttermost depth of his sentiments in sympathy with the fishermen. It is a remarkable feature of this Debate that the prospective relief for the industrial classes we represent depends not so much on any action that we can take in this country but on the prospects of international action which will enable our national trade to recover and ensure prosperity once more for all classes of our fellow-countrymen. The hon. Member for Yarmouth, representing the fishing in-
dustry, followed an hon. Member who represents the great engineering and shipbuilding industry of Clydeside. Wherever we go, from district to district, from industrial area to industrial area, we find the most wonderful unanimity in regard to the advantage of bringing about the strongest measure of trade agreement with Russia.

It is a revelation also of the changes which time works even in the minds of Members of Parliament. This Debate has been an almost unanimous expression of the belief that even Russia is no longer to be left outside the bounds and scope of international fellowship and international co-operation. We are more united on this subject than we were when discussing a domestic question yesterday and the day before. This is no doubt owing to the innate common sense of the people of this country, and it should be a comfort to those who believe in the great future of this country to find that, in spite of all misrepresentations or concealment of facts, in spite of the purveyance of deliberate false information, the people of this country are not, generally, being misled, but that their native common sense is leading them to realise that the great things which are taking place in Russia cannot be ignored for ever, and that the feelings which may have been created in our minds at one time or another in regard to Russia have no real foundation.

I approach the question of a resumption of trade with Russia from that standpoint. One or two arguments are still being brought against it. The hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) displays a constant interest and sympathy with a certain class of people, but to my regret I have never heard the hon. Member express himself with an eloquence so natural to him upon the condition of the people of this country. I have never heard him speak on the means test; his sympathy has always been with a few people, relatively an insignificant proportion of the people of this country, who have been foolish enough to invest their money in a risky foreign enterprise and who have been the victims of sharp practice by some financiers in this country.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Does not the hon. Member realise that many of those interested in the Lena Goldfields are in
dire poverty owing to the seizure of their money by the Soviet Government? They are people who are now absolutely penniless, but they are not eligible for unemployment benefit.

Mr. GRENFELL: I was referring to the hon. Member for South Kensington's reference to the Lena Goldfields Company. We know that it was a company formed under very doubtful auspices in the City of London, with which was associated a person who is now enjoying detention by His Majesty's Government in a certain place, and other people who have not yet been brought before the law. The organisation of companies of this kind is of doubtful advantage to this country, because it brings into disrepute the financial means by which these companies operate in all parts of the world. I am not making an attack on the hon. Lady or the hon. Member for South Kensington, but there is ample scope at home for an expression of the sympathy which they pour out upon people abroad. I have not noticed the Noble Lady shed tears about the condition of the people in this country with anything like the readiness with which she bewails the condition of people in other countries. Mr. Harman and his associates, who encouraged the enterprise of the Lena Goldfields, have led a large number of susceptible people into an adventure which has resulted in a loss. I hope that the Government will take notice of these things more frequently. While they cannot recall the trouble caused by the promotion of the Lena Goldfields Company, there may be no remedy, I hope they will take note of the discussion and the loss and suffering that has ensued so that such things may be prevented in the future.

Let me deal with the arguments against a renewal of the Trade Agreement. The agreement came to an end in October, 1932, under circumstances which we can all recall. Since then there have been attempts to renew it. Negotiations have taken place fitfully; there have been delays, suspensions, postponements and reopenings. We have been told of new obstacles in the way of the agreement, of new causes of difficulties arising from time to time, but I hope that now that the Lena Goldfields question seems to be on the way to settlement that there is no other subject which will be account-
able for further delay in this matter. In the arguments against a renewal of the Trade Agreement I believe there is something more than political prejudice, although that counts for a great deal. There is something in the argument of the balance of trade. The average man does not understand the intricacies of trade, and there is possibly an argument against the continuance of what appears to he a one-sided agreement. But really that argument does not carry one very far. The hon. Member for Bradford gave us some figures as to the trade we are conducting with other countries, which I think should help hon. Members to get rid of the bogey of the balance of trade.

It is true that the adverse balance in 1931 in our trade relations with Russia was £23,000,000, rather a substantial amount having regard to the total amount of trade between us. But the adverse balance of trade with the United States was £79,000,000, with Germany £32,000,000, with Denmark, a small country, £37,000,000, and with the Argentine also £37,000,000. In spite of these large adverse balances the President of the Board of Trade has been conducting negotiations with these countries, and has found means to bring about a trade agreement, first, with Germany with a much larger adverse balance of trade than exists between us and Russia, next with Denmark, with an equally large adverse balance, and then with the Argentine, with an equally large adverse balance of trade. If it is possible for the President of the Board of Trade to arrive at these Trade Agreements, for which the Government take credit, and by which it is hoped to bring advantage to this country, why cannot he bring about a trade agreement with Russia? The same principles apply. In these agreements figures are inserted to show the volume of trade, the quantities and the products they are to take from us. The President of the Board of Trade has successfully overcome the difficulties and has entered upon a system which is going to regulate and determine the quantity and character of the trade between this country and a large number of other countries where at present and for some time to come there must be an adverse balance of trade against us. The argument of the balance of trade, therefore, cannot stand in face of these facts, and the successful agreements which the right
hon. Gentleman has already accomplished.

These agreements are to be carried still further, more agreements are to be made. If the ambitions of the right hon. Gentleman are carried through we shall find ourselves in the end with a definite agreement with all the important trading countries of the world, by which in advance we shall know what quantities we are to receive from them and what quantities they are to receive from us. This revolutionary change has been achieved by the President of the Board of Trade with an air of impeccable respectability. He has done more revolutionary work in this country than any Minister in any country in Europe. Stalin and the revolutionary heads in Russia are simply carrying on a condition which they found existing before they came in, but the President of the Board of Trade, without turning a hair, without arousing any measure of suspicion, is making an entire change. He has swept away all the canons of Free Trade and is embarking on a system of trading, which is just as much a system of government trading as that in Russia, to which hon. Members opposite so much object. Indeed, I think we shall find, as we proceed, that we shall be much more exact and accurate in our control of trade than the Russian Government can possibly hope to be for some time to come.

But all this revolutionary work at home may cause some suspicion in the minds of people in other parts of the world. We are suspected, our methods are questioned, and we in this country, therefore, should not be too respectable to overlook the difference in principles of government and regulation of trade which exist in other parts of the world. The whole world is in a state of flux and changing conditions, and we who have embarked so boldly on large changes of policy should not be too particular if other people also try to change their economic conditions. The President of the Board of Trade has done great things. In his Trade Agreements with Denmark and Germany he has succeeded in every single case in getting a certain volume of trade, but in no single case has he been able to expand the volume of trade, it has always been an agreement to exchange trade on a smaller
volume than it was in 1929. But here is an opportunity offered to him as the champion of Trade Agreements, and to the Government who take credit for embarking on this policy of government regulation of trade, to secure an expansion of the volume of trade.

Miss HORSBRUGH: Does not the hon. Member know that there has been an expansion in some trades, such as the jute trade, in the Danish agreement?

Mr. GRENFELL: The hon. Lady has not contradicted the contention I made: that under the agreements the specified quantities of products to be exchanged between us and other countries are in almost every case lower than they were in 1929.

Miss HORSBRUGH: Almost, but not always.

Mr. GRENFELL: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has imagination of knowledge, I feel quite sure that he will not dispute my contention that here, given proper auspices, there is a chance enormously to enlarge the trade between us and Russia. It will be possible from the first year, if the hon. Gentleman likes, to lay down quantities on both sides, reducing the adverse balance and the limits within which the adverse balance shall be allowed to exist, but there is also the chance to make a Trade Agreement which will enable a large and increasing volume of trade to be carried on in Russia during the next five years, ten years, or whatever period the Government choose. Let all the Ministers, and the hon. Gentleman who has just come in, take notice of this. I am convinced that we have not the old Tories opposite us at the present time. I am a little apprehensive of this Government; it is so difficult to describe or to identify. It is not the old Toryism, it is removed from Liberalism, and there is a semblance of Socialism in it—it is difficult to know what it is.

An HON. MEMBER: It is the Loch Ness monster!

Mr. GRENFELL: While they take enormous risks, I shall not be dismayed by any risk they may take. I shall support any attempt to solve the world economic problem, and to further the
common weal of the people. There is no prospect of expansion of trade in any of the countries with which we already have Trade Agreements, but there is a possibility of great expansion of trade with Russia, China, and other so-called backward and—I speak without offence—undeveloped countries of the world. If you could but remove political prejudice, advantage would automatically accrue to both countries. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) and myself have been to Russia. Perhaps he saw the Russian problem a little more clearly after his visit; I did, and I came back after five weeks' sojourn in that country with a conviction of the great potential capacity of Russia not only to produce itself but to be the largest of all consumers of the products of this country. We have a small population in a small territory; we have too much machinery for production and too little for consumption. For an outlet for our large productive capacity we must send goods overseas, and the place to which to send them is a country with a large consuming population.

Russia is the one country preeminently fitted for our products at the present time. It has a vast extent of territory with thousands of miles of railroads needing great machinery and equipment—all the consuming capacity that this country wants. It has 160,000,000 people and an extent of territory inconceivable to an Englishman, who is accustomed to reach the limits of his country by train in one day.

Here is an opportunity for the Government to make an agreement with Russia. It is one of the faults of our Government, in common with the average Englishman, that they think in terms of individual gain and of commerce. The Government are limiting and contracting trade in a manner contrary to the system upon which our trade agreements have been built. In Russia, however, there are 160,000,000 or 170,000,000 people working together with as much enthusiasm as people in any part of the world. Contrary to the belief of hon. Members opposite, all those people are working for the community with no thought of personal profit in an effort to build up a larger community life. Their efforts are directed to the common good of all their people. The Government of Russia are
striving to build up a standard of living for 160,000,000 people. With that Government the hon. Gentleman opposite me has the opportunity to negotiate, and I believe that he will succeed.

An hon. Member said earlier in the Debate that Russia needs peace. There is not a country in the world so conscious of the advantages of peace as the great country of Russia. It can lose everything in a war in which it is involved; it can lose everything that it has planned, without the slightest advantage to any other country which may be responsible for its downfall. What advantage can we gain from the downfall of the present regime in Russia, from any check in its development? Its people are poor compared with the peoples of the West, because they have not the mechanical equipment which has been built up here in the last 50 or 100 years. Russia needs the assistance of the West to build up an industrial system for itself, by which it can reach a standard comparable with that of the United States, ourselves, Germany and the leading countries of the world. It cannot do that of its own accorrd, but only by our assistance. There are no two countries in the world so mutually necessary, so complementary, so supplementary, as this country and the great community of Russia.

I do not think there is a division of opinion on the general merits of the question that we have discussed this afternoon, but I urge the Government not to hesitate, not to delay. In this troubled world the main cause of international complications is the indecision of Governments. Governments in the main have a clear understanding of what they intend or desire to achieve, but they suffer from this fatal timidity, this fatal hesitation. Opportunities have been lost time and time again, and this great opportunity of accommodating ourselves to the new world conditions as exemplified by Russia we should be very careful indeed not to lose.

The world may, under the most favourable auspices, be spared the catastrophe which sometimes looms over the horizon; the possibility of another war. That would be a final dashing of all our hopes for world reconstruction for some time. But as imperatively necessary as the negative peace of which we speak is the positive work of peace, the work of re-
construction, which I feel is close to the hearts of hon. Gentlemen opposite. On the ground of immediate advantage to our own country; on the ground of advantage to world prosperity and of the stability of the world economic fabric, the general structure of world commerce; on the ground of advantage to the cause of world peace, which we all desire to serve, this opportunity is vital to the interests of this country, vital to the interests of Russia, but almost as vital to the interests of the whole world.

7.9 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): We have had an interesting Debate, and we cannot complain of its nature in any way. I have particularly little reason to complain of the speech that has just been made by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell). I welcome his eloquent tribute to the recent Trade Agreements made by the President of the Board of Trade. On one point I should like to correct him, for he did them rather less than justice; he indicated that those agreements would not in his opinion provide for a growing trade; that they fixed trade at its present level. That is not the case. In all these agreements the whole aim is to increase the export trade of Great Britain, and already, in the few months that have elapsed since the signature of the agreements and in almost every case in which an agreement has been reached, the export of British goods has gone up.

The subject of export trade with Russia always arouses interest in this House; an interest which is sometimes, I think, out of proportion to the volume of that trade in relation to the total trade of the United Kingdom. Of the many questions that I have answered on the subject of overseas trade in the last two years the number of questions on Russia has far exceeded the number on any other country. Yet our total exports to the Soviet Union in the best year, which was 1932, were valued at £10,500,000, whereas our total exports to all destinations in that year were over £416,000,000. Many countries such as India, Australia, South Africa, France and Canada, of which the export trade has been of considerably greates value, have attracted considerably less interest on the part
of assiduous questioners in the House of Commons. I do not want to suggest that a trade of £10,500,000 is not of value, but we must keep a sense of perspective in the matter of our overseas trade. The interest is to a large extent political, because of the special circumstances reigning in the Soviet Union. For instance, I am at a loss to understand the tremendous enthusiasm which members of the Labour party always show when they come to this subject. The enthusiasm that they show for Russia is greater than that which they show for any other country, with the possible exception—I think we have to stress the word "possible"—of their own. I take it that the political circumstances in Russia are the cause of the special interest which the subject attracts.

I was asked the view of the Government as regards relations with Russia. There I must answer that the foreign policy of His Majesty's Government is to cultivate and maintain good relationships with all foreign countries, to which policy Russia is no exception. That is our policy, and I am glad to have the opportunity of saying so. For my own part as a trader, if my hon. Friends from the North will forgive me, my point of view is a purely Aberdonian one. That is to say, I do not ask myself whether I agree or disagree with the composition of the Russian Government and the political views of the Soviet Union, but whether there is or is not profitable business to be done betweent Russia and our country. Here again, I think that the business will be a good deal more profitable for both sides if it can be carried out in an atmosphere of good will. Judged from that standpoint of trade, the question is undoubtedly of interest, as the trade, from its complementary nature—which has been pointed out—is one that should be capable of development; but it has in fact for a number of years been so one-sided that it is the duty of His Majesty's Government to make every possible effort to correct the balance.

An HON. MEMBER: That applies to other countries.

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: His Majesty's Government's policy applies to other countries also, where, by our Trade Agreements, we are in fact improving the balance of trade between those countries
and ours. I am quite in agreement with the hon. Gentleman who interrupted me that the Soviet Union are in a much better position to assist in improving the balance than any other country, because we have to supply them with goods to correct the balance which is in their hands. The figures illustrating the balance of trade show that the excess of visible imports over exports for 1930 was £24,900,000; in 1931 it was £23,100,000; in 1932 it was £9,200,000, and in 1933 it was £13,200,000. These figures indicate that in the two years during which the National Government have been in office the balance has been closer than in previous years. None the less, the excess of imports over exports during that period is such as to call the attention of the Government to the question of whether a better balance cannot be secured.

It has been suggested that the falling-off of our export trade to Russia in 1933 was due to the action of His Majesty's Government and to the absence of an agreement. I should like to correct that impression. In point of fact the total Russian imports from all sources during that year were greatly curtailed, due to the policy of the Soviet Union for financial considerations.

To illustrate this, let me give the Soviet figures. The total monthly average of imports into the Soviet Union from all sources in 1932 was 58,000,000 roubles, while for the period April to November, 1933, the average was only 28,000,000 roubles, or a reduction of 50.9 per cent. of the total imports. Comparing a similar period, the reduction in the United Kingdom exports to Russia amounts to 62 per cent. That shows that we have lost some ground, but it also shows that the real loss in volume of trade was due to a reduction in total imports on the part of the Soviet Union for financial reasons. Even taking this into account, the United Kingdom share of the Russian market in those months of 1933 was 10 per cent., a higher percentage than in the years previous to 1932, when the Labour Government was in office. It should be noted that the share which we obtained in the contracted market in this year was higher than in any other year except 1932. But, as I have said, the whole trade had to some extent contracted. Moreover, except for the period when the embargo was in force
and when the relations on both sides were undoubtedly abnormal, there was nothing to prevent the Russian Government from placing orders in this country during that period, and in fact the sales here were very considerable and no action was taken to limit them. When it is suggested that it was the fault of the Government that the orders were not larger, hon. Members are not really considering the full facts of the case.

Let me turn to other points that have been raised in the Debate. We are asked, why have an agreement at all? In the experience of the Government trade relations with countries which have agreements are more satisfactory than with those which have not. But we must have an agreement which is satisfactory from the United Kingdom point of view, and the agreement which we gave notice to determine was not in our opinion one which was wholly satisfactory from the United Kingdom point of view. Quite apart from the question of certain provisions in the Ottawa Agreement which have been referred to, there is also the fact that an agreement of the ordinary most-favoured-nation type was not applicable in the ordinary sense because of the specialised and centralised nature of the trade, in which the Russian Government have power to select exactly what they will purchase. So in the negotiation of the agreement it was our purpose to obtain one which on all grounds would be more satisfactory to United Kingdom trade.

Let me turn now to the actual negotiations for a new agreement. Here I am at a disadvantage which I think the House will appreciate. Scripture tells us that in certain circumstances we must not allow our right hands to know what our left hands are doing. Certainly in negotiations that is a consideration which we have to regard. It is a fixed principle of our commercial negotiations that official statements as to the agreements in prospect should not be made until they can be published simultaneously by both negotiating countries. That rule has been adhered to in the case of Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, and the Argentine, and in the negotiations with Estonia and Latvia the rule is being firmly adhered to. There is no justification for departing from it
in this case, nor do I believe that the interest of securing an agreement would be served by departing from it. So on all the questions which have been asked about the possible provisions of the agreement and what parts of the negotiations are fraught with difficulty, I can only give the answer "Wait and see." But I do say that I believe hon. Members will not have long to wait, that the negotiations are in an advanced state, and that many of the difficulties have been removed. I hope that the House will have confidence for a little longer and that we shall be able to present it with an agreement which will give better opportunities for United Kingdom trade with Russia. Our desire is to secure an adequate share in the markets of that country. I have been asked, why so much delay? There has been a long and important negotiation for the reason I have explained, and I cannot go into details, or give a full answer. I can only say that it takes two to make an agreement, and that we could have had an agreement some time ago if we had been content to take one which we did not think satisfactory from the United Kingdom point of view. We have worked our way with a considerable amount of patience towards an agreement which I think the House will consider satisfactory. Now I ask the House to have a little confidence in what I believe to be the concluding stages of the negotiations.

As to the Lena Goldfields Company, the negotiations are shortly to be commenced, and for that reason I shall now say nothing which will in any way prejudice the chance of those negotiations. I will state only that they will be watched with close interest by the Government. Finally, I would assure the House that we have not lacked for advice during the carrying on of our negotiations with Russia. I have been associated with several sets of negotiations, as the House knows, and in no case has the advice been more voluminous or varied than in the present case. It has poured in from all sides, from trade organisations, from trade unions, and from private individuals who varied in their views from those who would cut off Russia altogether from the society of nations to those who would hand over all the funds of the Treasury
to enable Russia to place orders in this country It reminds me of the old tale of the miller and his son and an ass, and what happened to one who tried to please everybody. We have pursued a steady line of policy, and when it is possible to put before the House the details of the agreement on which we are working I have reason to believe that the House will not be disappointed.

Mr. THORNE: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman state why, during the negotiations, the Government have cut down by 80,000 standards the imports of what is known as Russian soft timber?—

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The negotiations in regard to timber have gone on quite separately from the negotiations in regard to the Trade Agreement, and have not delayed it in any way.

Mr. C. BROWN: In view of the general tone of the Debate and the several expressions of opinion in favour of the Amendment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House urges His Majesty's Government to take active steps to correct the present unsatisfactory balance of trade between the United Kingdom and Russia in order that British manufacturers and producers may secure a more adequate share in the markets of that country.

REDISTRIBUTION OF THE POPULATION OF THE EMPIRE AND EMPIRE TRADE AND SHIPPING.

7.30 p.m.

Sir ARTHUR SHIRLEY BENN: I beg to move,
That this House is of opinion that the time has now come when His Majesty's Government should get in touch with the Governments of the Dominions with a view to putting forward a scheme for the voluntary redistribution of the white peoples of the Empire and the stimulation of shipping and trade under the flag.

I need hardly apologise to the House for bringing up this matter again, for on the last two or three occasions on which I have raised it I have found that almost everyone in the House agreed with my proposition. In 1924 a resolution
was passed stating that the future could be preserved only by the cultivation of Empire trade. The then President of the Board of Trade, Mr. Sidney Webb, stated during the Debate that he was willing to set up a committee which I suggested to deal with the matter. He appointed a committee and chose Sir Arthur Balfour of Sheffield as its chairman. I think the reports of that committee are things that we ought to be very thankful to have. In February, 1926, I again moved a Motion and put forward a scheme of State migration on a large scale. In December, 1932, the House carried unanimously a resolution which pointed out that migration overseas was much lower than before the War and urged the Government to take immediate steps to secure the co-operation of the Dominions in a comprehensive scheme of migration within the Empire. When that resolution was carried unanimously I had hopes that action would be taken, but in April last the Dominions Secretary told me that the question of types of schemes and the resumption of migration was receiving the most earnest consideration of the Government, and that new schemes could not be started until conditions were more favourable.

I believe the time has come when action must be taken if we are to continue our Empire as it is. We look around to-day at the various countries that are our competitors, and we see in every one of them an enormous amount of unemployment, thousands and thousands of men and women who want work and cannot get it, and we know that one of the reasons is that every country is endeavouring to introduce machinery that will enable mass production to be undertaken, and that this will take away from the ordinary worker the handicraft for which he is noted. In such circumstances we have to take new measures. We are the oldest and most experienced of the self-governing Dominions which are called by some the Commonwealth of British Nations. These Dominions own the British Empire and are responsible for the Empire. I believe that every one of the Colonial peoples realises that it has a great job to perform and a great property inherited, and that there must be development if the Empire is to be of use.

We had the Economic Conference at Ottawa in 1932. The note of the solidarity of our race was sounded in London in 1930 and acted upon in Ottawa. Inter-Imperial trade has increased but if we are to have still more inter-Imperial trade we must get our friends thoughout the Empire to realise not only that we have to keep up our trade but that we have to keep our British ships going in order to carry our goods between the different parts of the Empire. We cannot discriminate against the foreigner but we can say that tariff preferences will only be given in cases where the goods are carried in British ships. To-day when we look round the Empire we must realise that the men at the head of affairs in the various Dominions and Colonies are just as loyal as their predecessors—those predecessors who in 1921 sat here in London and supported the idea of State migration worked by Great Britain and by the Dominions and Colonies. That attempt was not successful, but one does not always succeed at the first attempt. The next attempt will succeed.

I must apologise to the House for the huskiness of my voice. I am speaking under a disadvantage in that respect. I would only say that if our people can be brought together we have in the Empire vast territories which need development. We can build railways for those territories; we can improve docks, we can send out pioneers and, in assisting in the development of those places, we shall do a very good thing both for ourselves and for the Dominions. We are told, of course, that this is not the time for such schemes and that there is no money for them. I suggest that if it is for the good of our people, we ought to have the vision and the courage to undertake such a work and that we can get the necessary money for it even if we have to borrow it and put it on to the future. If such a policy would give employment to our people here and keep our race together, then we ought to undertake it. I hope the House of Commons will tell the Government to go ahead with it, to consult the Dominions and to try to make the Dominions realise that it is their duty just as much as ours to see that the Empire is developed if they intend to keep countries which many other nations to-day long to hold.

7.34 p.m.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: I beg to second the Motion.

I am sure I voice the general opinion of the House when I say how much we sympathise with the hon. Baronet who, in spite of the physical disability from which he is, at the moment, suffering, has once more proclaimed his faith in the great Imperial idea. I can only say as a personal friend of his that I have watched with admiration for 30 years his unceasing work to rouse us to the knowledge that this is not merely a small island but the centre of the greatest collection of States known in the history of the world. My hon. Friend has asked the Government to take early steps to consult with the Dominions and Colonies regarding the whole question of the population of the Empire and the other vital topics of the extension of Imperial trade and the safeguarding of the life of the British shipping industry. We bring forward these ideas in great friendship to the Government. I believe there is not a single Member of any party who would not desire to see an examination of all the possibilities as to how we can restore the prosperity of the Empire as a whole.

Personally, I should like to see a conference of Members of Parliament from various parts of the Empire, because I am convinced that there is no general opposition among the rank and file in the Dominions to such ideas as we have to put before the House. By such a method we could bring together Members of all parties to discuss this great proposal. I think the suggestion recently put forward by Mr. Bruce, representing Australia in this country, are worthy of consideration, namely, that there should be some permanent committee or board for the purpose of looking ahead to see how we can successfully plan future developments and avoid the pitfalls which are being created to-day owing to difficulties in primary production and in other ways. We ought to be able to look many years ahead to see how the various parts of the Empire can help each other. It is not an exaggeration to say that all the great nations to-day are planning ahead, or trying to do so. They are working to develop their resources, to increase the interchange of products in their own countries—perhaps too much so from one point of view—and to absorb their unemployed. Some of them, we
know, are working out plans for many years ahead. I am not referring now to Russia but to other countries which have long term plans.

I think everyone will agree that Great Britain may be pround of her achievement since the doleful year of 1930 and the first six months of 1931. We have accomplished a remarkable recovery in the face of great difficulties, and he would not be fair who would deny that this Parliament has turned the nation from the downward path and given new hope and inspiration to the people. But I sometimes wonder whether the Government are not so absorbed in the mighty problems of the moment that they fail to look ahead five, ten, fifteen or twenty years. Some of us feel that we in this country are living too much from hand to mouth. I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that all the time the unemployment problem grows in intensity and a complete solution becomes harder to find. Whatever success we may achieve in building up our internal trade, and much has been achieved, we must recollect that there are 200,000 additional potential workers coming on to the labour market every year. It is inconceivable that we can dispose of the unemployment problem or even bring the mass of our unemployed back into work under those conditions.

In 10 years time the fall in the birth-rate may ease the situation to a certain extent but, whatever our political opinions may be, we cannot regard with equanimity the situation which exists to-day. Although we hope for a steady improvement we cannot complacently wait for another decade, seeing hopelessness, misery and despair in the hearts of such a large section of our population. Many of us feel that we ought to abandon the role of Micawber and seek the vision of Cecil Rhodes. I do not think any party in the State to-day has any fixed ideas as to what our future policy ought to be and I am sure that the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) will forgive me if I suggest that the official Opposition are not allowed to state their ideas until they get their marching orders from Bristol on some future occasion. The attitude of the Liberal party is largely negative. They are the party of dissent and the party of yesterday. But I am hopeful of the party of to-morrow—the Conservative party.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The party of Cecil Rhodes is the party of yesterday.

Sir H. CROFT: No. It is the party to which we may see even the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) coming at some future time, in view of his progress from the benches below the Gangway to those above the Gangway. But I would remind Conservatives that for the last 30 years we have been profound believers in the British Empire. I am not suggesting that there are not men in all parties who are equally sincere in that belief, but for the last 30 years we have always informed our audiences throughout the country of the great possibilities which we believe to lie in the British Empire. We have to get down to reality. It is no good assuming the attitude of waxworks. We must act and we want a great plan—something to strive for and something to win.

On behalf of a committee which has been sitting for the last year dealing with this subject I desire to place before the House, not the full plan upon which we have been working because that would be impossible in the time at our disposal, but the broad outlines of the conclusions at which we have arrived. May I say in passing, in regard to this committee, that it consists of some 14 hon. Members of this House, not all of one party, and some members of the other House. We have had the assistance of six of the greatest experts on this question, men who have given their lives to the problem of Empire population and development and who are not in Parliament. During the past year we have examined either as witnesses or by personal consultation 75 gentlemen who can also be described as experts in their particular spheres, including men who have worked as farmers in the territories under consideration, explorers, engineers and officials of various states and provinces. I think I can say that we are all convinced that the greatest possibilities for the development of our industry and the restoration of the prosperity of the Empire as a whole, lie in the cordial co-operation of the various parts of the Empire along large lines. I cannot speak too highly of the patriotism of those gentlemen who, day after day, throughout the past year have given up their time and devoted their attention to this
great work without hope of any reward other than the knowledge that they are serving their country and Imperial interests.

Such as they are we offer our ideas not to any party—though we hope that some party or parties will adopt them—but to the nation. The population problem is as grave in Great Britain as in any country in the world. We are thicker on the ground than other peoples and that problem is not going to grow easier with time. But if we can think in terms of Empire it must be admitted that there are territories within the confines of the Empire which hold out greater opportunities than any country under any other flag in the world can possibly provide. What was the genesis of this terrible trouble of unemployment? It was simply the cessation of emigration. If migration to the Empire alone had continued from 1918 at the same rate as migration was flowing in the five years prior to the War, we should have no unemployed in this country at the present day. If we grant that great fact, then I submit that we are putting our finger on the problem and also on the solution of that problem. Everyone knows that indiscriminate migration to the Empire is impossible. The Dominions will not accept migrants at the present time. As far as I can find, it is not hostility, certainly not general hostility, but necessity, which compels them to take up that position, because they have their own unemployment problems. My friends and I do not wish to aggravate those problems. On the contrary, we believe that such ideas as we desire to put before the House would go a very long way towards solving them.

I think it is generally admitted that Governments have tried schemes in the past and have very largely failed. No Government, in my opinion, can father a settlement scheme and see the settler right through. What is needed is, that the whole of the work should be in the hands of a corporation, or a chartered company if you will, whose whole future depends on the success of the settler, a corporation with whose fortunes the settler knows his future is bound up, which will equip him, which will see him on suitable soil, in territory which they have surveyed, where you have the three great essentials of soil, rainfall, and money, and where the corporation will
see him through until he has harvested his crops—a corporation which will market his crops, so that they will be able to send truckloads of produce from great communities of settlers, rather than from scattered individuals settled in far places—a corporation that will put the settler on the road to owner-occupation through the help of such corporation.

We ask something of the Dominions. I am not afraid of making a suggestion to the Dominions. I know it is difficult for the Government and that it might look as if they were butting in, but I am not afraid of sending a message to the Dominions. I have seen far too much of the men of the Dominions ever to believe that there is any real hostility, if we speak straight to them. I have seen men from the Dominions die like flies beside me in the Great War, and I shall never forget the amazing sacrifices of those wonderful Expeditionary Forces which came from overseas. Therefore, I speak to them as friends, and we ask that the Dominions should give grants of large areas, suitable for close settlement, for mixed farming, away from the cities and, if possible, in unpopulated areas where there are no insuperable difficulties with regard to the vested interests either of labour or of capital. We want the Dominions to let us build up entirely new colonies of British settlers in the undeveloped portions of their States and Provinces; and in return for the grant of those lands, we propose that Britain, through a corporation or company of unimpeachable integrity and authority, should give the Dominions, at no cost to themselves, hosts of new taxpayers and consumers, to their great enrichment and the immense social and material advantage of our country—in other words, new producers and consumers and new markets for Dominion and British goods within the structure of the British Empire.

One word with regard to the greatest needs of the Dominions. It seems to me that they require, more than anything else, increased populations, to share their tax burdens and to make it more easy for them to carry on their social services, to increase their internal trade, to provide freights for their transport systems, which at present have no adequate freights to make them pay, and to help to render their countries immune from
the attacks of a possible enemy in the future and to prevent the covetousness of other countries looking upon their countries which they have not developed. And what is the greatest, need of this country? Surely it is to bring the great mass of our unemployed people back into productive enterprise, to save them from the physical, moral, and spiritual destruction which years of unemployment must mean, to give them once more the dignity of effort and labour, to relieve also the whole of our industrial and taxable population from the extraordinarily high burden of taxation, which is at present one of the real causes of unemployment in our midst, and which, unless we can lift it, must inevitably retard our recovery, if not make it impossible, and thereby injure our workers more than any other class.

These two great problems of Britain and the Dominions can obviously cancel each other out if we have the wit and will and if our resources of wealth are applied in that direction, provided always that we have the general concurrence and good will of the statesmen of the Empire as a whole. We propose—and after all, these ideas are not larger than some great men in other countries at the present moment are putting before their people—to move a large population of our people overseas. I should like a first scheme aiming at something like 250,000 people, and I suggest that we should aim at this within at least the next 10 years. People may say: "This is really an impossible idea that you are putting before the House." Well, we moved 7,000,000 men in the War, we rooted them up from their homes, gave them new homes, put them into barracks or hutments or somewhere, and moved them across the whole world, and I cannot believe it is such an impossible task for us to attempt to move a population of the description that I have mentioned, provided we can get the consent of our friends overseas.

We desire to see a large effort. We want to see chains of villages laid out in these territories overseas, each village people by families from the same city or area in the homeland, and we would like to see the villages ultimately named after the home centres from which these people came. We propose that the village populations should be recruited together, trained together, housed together, in special villages in this country, which we
would construct, each under picked overseers, and that the whole village unit or units, when trained, should proceed overseas, under the same overseers, to their destinations, which to a certain extent would have been prepared in advance for them and for their reception by the company in those territories. We propose to construct railways and roads to link up these chains of villages one with the other, and ultimately with the towns and possibly the cities which we believe may arise out of this scheme. We propose that the whole of the vast material for this great construction work should be provided by Britain and by the Empire overseas, thus giving employment to every class of producer, from the steelworkers in this country right through all the various kinds of work down to the lumbermen who fell the raw timber in the Empire overseas. We propose that the whole of the preparatory construction work in these new centres should be carried out by British and Dominion workers, probably in equal numbers, and, of course, the construction of the training villages in this country, which in itself will be quite a considerable work, will be carried out by our own workers in this country also.

What about the cost? Altogether apart from the ultimate financial return, which I for one am convinced, and I think our Committee is convinced, will very likely be great, we say that even if we were asking the State to pay cash to the extent of the interest on the capital involved, which we are not going to do, the interest cost of our first scheme, the first idea we have, of some 40,000 settlers with their wives and families, or possibly 160,000 souls in all, would not exceed the annual cost of únemployment benefit paid to an equivalent number of workers in Great Britain to-day. I particularly stress the words "equivalent number," because it is not our intention to take chronic unemployed, who have very likely lost their energy and their adventurous spirit, and try to dump them down in the Colonies. As a matter of fact, most of the hundreds of letters that I am receiving at present are from people who are in employment in this country, but who want to develop, to get their own land and their own homes, but we believe that every employed man in this country whom you could migrate under such a scheme as this would pro-
vide a gap for one of our unemployed at the present moment, and I venture to think the relief to the State would be the same in the end.

Now, if I may, I will address a word to all those in this House who may be economists—and I suppose we are all economists, or think we are—and ask them once more to come back to realities, to get a sense of proportion. Since the War we have spent, I think I am right in saying, £1,000,000,000 in doles, which, after all, really come to this: they are really charity, provided by the worker's fellow-workers, by his industrial employers, and by the State—£1,000,000,000, from none of which can we claim, unfortunately, that there has been any very great productive return. We have spent something like £200,000,000 in providing temporary work for not a large number of thousands of unemployed, many of whom, I think it will be admitted, are now back again at the Labour Exchange. If we had had one-quarter of that sum at the disposal of a corporation such as I suggest, and if, with the consent of the Dominions, we could have placed the number of persons I suggest in the first scheme—40,000 settlers, with their wives and children, or 160,000 souls in all—on lands and in homes which would in 21 years become their own, that would be something which I think everyone would agree would be wise statesmanship. Since 1920 we have lent something like £200,000,000, if the Midland Bank figures are correct, to Germany, Austria and other European countries in order to set them on their feet, while our people in large numbers continue to walk the streets. Much of the interest on these European loans is in default. Under our scheme, I believe that you would not find a similar condition and that there is no more likely to be default than there has been in any other great Imperial undertaking during these past years when the British Empire has been such a shining example to the world in paying its way and paying its interest.

I hope I have shown the House that even if the whole risk of financing this project were to be assumed by the State, it would, on the whole, not be an unwise piece of business. But this is not our suggestion. We are asking that some kind of guarantee should be given
to a corporation or company of this description under the Trade Facilities Act or some other similar proposal in order that we could borrow at such terms as to make the plan a definite success. May I say at once, in case there is any mistake about this, that as far as I know no member of the Committee which has been working on this subject has any idea of being interested financially in any company or companies which may be formed. Of one thing I am assured, and that is that when we have an opportunity of disclosing our full plan in a suitable Debate we can prove that the State will gain great and lasting financial and economic advantages from such a scheme. This is a very broad outline, and I hope an early opportunity will be given when we can go into the details of this plan and when various Members of the Committee will have opportunities of speaking on various subjects such as recruitment, training, transport, reception, the clearing of land, the provision of water supplies, and also the ultimate increase in the value of the territories which must occur and which itself would prove very adequate security to any company working along these lines.

That is a broad outline of our ideas, and I hope that it will not be said in the course of the Debate: "The time is not now; we must not work out plans of this kind now." Let me tell His Majesty's Government that, if there is anything in these ideas, the longer they delay the less favourable will be the terms on which they can secure these territories. Little developments would take place in areas which are untouched, and they would greatly complicate the scheme. I hope that the Government will regard this as a constructive plan worthy of consideration. There are some who feel that we ought to draw in our horns and that our burdens are greater than we can bear. Speaking for my friends, I believe the constructive genius of our race is not yet dead and that we should acquit our task nobly, that we should place our brains and skill and great wealth at the disposal of our fellow citizens throughout the length and breadth of the Empire in order that they may build afresh and plan anew, and in order that they may develop in every continent in which the British flag flies.
Renew or die: Renew the age-long flame, Or know that pride of race and crown of worth Shall pass and leave the shadow of a name To speak of our inheritance on earth.

8.5 p.m.

Sir EDWARD GRIGG: The hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Sir A. Shirley Benn) is to be congratulated and thanked by every Member of the House who is keen upon this subject for once more giving us an opportunity of discussing it, for opportunities have been unfortunately rare. I do not go so far as the hon. Baronet the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) went in his speech, with the greater part of which I find myself in the readiest agreement. I would not go so far as to say that the stoppage in migration was the cause of unemployment in this country. I am afraid that we have to admit that migration itself has been stopped by the causes which have stopped so many other activities in the world, and that the stoppage of migration is a symptom to a very large extent and not a cause. If we are to have a true diagnosis that fact must be faced, and we have to deal with the causes which have made migration get gradually weaker and weaker until it has absolutely ceased. I agree with the hon. Baronet that for the last 70 years at least migration has been an essential element in the economic balance of this country, and that without it this country could not possibly have carried on. I think that fact is demonstrated by such statistics as we possess, which show that something like 15,000,000 people left this country in the 60 years between 1851 and 1911. But for that export of population and the export of capital upon which it was based, this country could never have carried on. Its wealth has been built up on that process and a great deal of the rise in the standard of living which happily has been built up here has been due to that process too.

The undoubted failure of that movement is of the gravest consequence, and it is of especial consequence because it has occurred at the very moment when the country is already suffering from the loss of markets overseas for its export trade. Every 100,000 people who do not leave this country in the way that they did in the past means an additional strain on the export industries of this country, and that strain has become in-
tensified all the time while the markets overseas were failing us. That process, bad enough in itself, has been aggravated by one other factor as well. People have been moving steadily off the land of this country from the countryside to the towns. The figures in that respect are most eloquent. I was looking at the last report of the Overseas Settlement Committee the other day, and it showed how acute this problem has become. I think that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is Chairman of the Committee. The report showed that in 1932, while 25,000 people from this country went overseas to settle, 75,000 returned. To that must be added the fact that in the last ten years in this country 140,000 who were occupied in agriculture have left it. That is according to the latest labour returns. I am glad to say that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture stopped that process in 1933 for the first time, I believe, in 60 years, but the process has been going on steadily for many years past, and it has become even more acute since the War.

Of course, that has gravely aggravated the problems with which we have to deal. There is this population banking up in this country at the present time, but we have not only to face the population we have. The Astor Migration Committee went into the figures to see what extra population we should have coming on the employment market in the next 10 years, and they found that if even the births and deaths remained the same, we should have to employ 1,000,000 more people between the ages of 16 and 61 in the next 10 years. All that is a tremendous strain considering what an unsuccessful effort we are making to deal with the population that we have. I do not believe that the permanent unemployment which has been with this country ever since the War can be tackled unless the process of settlement on the land is renewed. There is, of course, a great measure of unemployment which is due to the world crisis, from which we have suffered like everybody else, and which has greatly intensified our unemployment. Remember, however, that we have never had fewer than 1,000,000 unemployed since the War, and the presence of that hard core of unemployment is, I believe, due to the fact that the economic balance of this country has been profoundly altered, and
to the fact that there is so little balance between the agriculture and the industry of this country, and that migration to lands oversea has got weaker and weaker until it has finally stopped.

I am going to assume that the Government are endeavouring to frame a policy on this subject. I assume that with confidence because, among other things, one is led to believe by what was said by the Overseas Settlement Committee's Report last year that they would produce—I hope without too much delay—the facts that are very much required, namely, a detailed review of what migration has meant and how the factors with regard to it now stand. I hope that if my hon. Friend takes part in the Debate he will be able to say that that report will be produced. It is of great importance that we should have it because these facts are very difficult to ascertain, and a great many of them are misinterpreted in current comment. There was one phrase in the Committee's Report which caused me considerable consternation, and I remember it now that this Debate occurs. The report said that His Majesty's Government were collecting facts
with a view to the formulation of a considered policy against the time when migration revives.
I hope that condition is not really being observed by the Government. We want migration to be revived by the action of the Government; we do not want the Government to wait until migration by some automatic process or other revives. That seems to be the duty of the Government when faced with such a problem as is presented by the permanent unemployment in this country, because it must be remembered that permanent unemployment is steadily increasing all the time. One cannot get away from the terrible figures. I have them up to December last year, and I find that while the general rate of unemployment has been falling the rate of permanent unemployment has been rising all the time. Every month last year the rate of permanent unemployment rose. That is the fundamental problem with which the Government have to deal. The Government have been given great power by the country, they have a great opportunity, and if they fail to deal with the problem not only they but all of us in the country will suffer.

A great many other Members wish to speak, and I do not think an occasion like this is the best for going into detailed plans, although, like my hon. Friend below me, I have given a good deal of study to different plans. I would like to mention one or two points which seem to me to be essential in any plan, and which, though I may be doing him an injustice perhaps, he overlooked. How are we going to move the people on the scale which he conceives? He talked of the movement of people during the War, but those were compulsory movements, and we have to consider how people can be persuaded to move at this time. I see great difficulty in that.

Sir H. CROFT: We have reason to believe that there are an immense number of our countrymen who would be only too ready to go if there were a real opportunity. That information is given to us by all the various organisations.

Sir E. GRIGG: I am very glad to have that explanation. From my own experience I should have doubted the existence of such numbers as he suggests who would be ready to emigrate at a word when told that a plan was complete. But whether the people of this country will be ready to emigrate or not, we must look at this from the point of view of the Dominions, and the fact is that the Dominions have never been anxious to take people from the towns, and that practically all successful settlement in the Dominions and in the United States has come from people born and bred on the land. It is very difficult, as a practical process, to take people from the surroundings of a great industrial urban area in this country and put them in new lands, however well they are looked after when they get there.

If we study the process of settlement of new lands throughout the world during the last century we shall find that, generally speaking, it was carried out, when successfully carried out, on the relay system. The western states of the United States of America were settled from the eastern states, a new population coming into the eastern states. South Australia was very largely settled from Victoria, the new emigrants coming on to land which had already been cleared and, to some extent, made ready for them. In the early years of this century
I myself watched the settlement of the Canadian prairies, and the most effective settlement came from Ontario, Quebec and the eastern provinces of Canada. Whatever we do, we must have a very strong leaven of men and women who know what life under new conditions means and who are prepared to help their comrades. I raise that point particularly because, if we are again to get migration from this country to the Dominions on a large scale we must begin by giving people here the opportunity of going on the land in this country. After all, what answer is there to a man who says, "Why cannot I grow the same thing in England as I am asked to grow in New Zealand?" It is a very natural question. Is there really a greater opportunity to make butter 12,000 miles away than here? Those are questions which have to be answered.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Is the hon. Member's point that we should endeavour to get our people permanently back on to the land? Is not the point rather that we should train those who are to be sent out before they go, fitting them here for the work which they will have to do abroad?

Sir E. GRIGG: The hon. and gallant Member must make his own speech in his own time. I agree that we can do a certain amount by training people before they go, but the process I had more in mind was that the people who understand the land here should have the opportunity of going and their places here should be taken by others who are not ready to go so far away. New settlement is much better done by our farming class than by any other class in this country, and I should like to see the farming population of this country increased, with the idea that some of it might be spared to go overseas, that process being spread over a certain number of years.

But when considering why emigration has ceased we must face the fact that it has ceased because farming does not pay. People would still be going to other countries if there were any prospect for them when they got there. The fact we have to face is that when they get there they will starve, and that is why a great many do not go, and why the whole process has died down. The Lord President of the Council said very truly in a
speech which he made somewhere the other day that he did not wish to see settlement on the land pursued any further in this country until our existing agriculture had been made to pay. I think that on this question we must get back to much simpler ideas than have prevailed for a long time past. We must get back to subsistence farming. The most successful settlement has been done on that basis. If we undertook to create a colony of people which would largely support itself, so that we could go to the Dominions and say "We are trying to establish, through these development or chartered companies, colonies which will support themselves and which will only to a very small degree compete for a share of the small quota you now enjoy in the English market," we should get very much better support than if we say "Here are hundreds of thousands of people arriving to make more competition for a market which is being narrowed all the time by the activities of the farmers in the United Kingdom,"—which is not at all an inviting prospect for the Dominions. Let us get back to subsistence farming, and say that is the process on which we propose, at any rate in the first instance, to work, and we shall get very much more support from the Dominions than we should get by any other process. I think my hon. Friend sitting opposite will support me, because the experiment in South America in which he has been interested has, I think, illustrated the truth of that statement.

There is only one other point I should like to make this evening, and that is that the Government ought not to attempt again to produce Government schemes. Practically all the migration schemes which I have seen which have been controlled by Governments have broken down, for reasons which I will not go into. They do not work. I do not believe that effective migration can be carried out except through private enterprice; and that is as true of settlement on the land in this country as of migration to the Dominions. I hope that when the Government go into plans, as I trust they are doing, for settling people on the land here as well as for reviving the process of migration to the Dominions, they will go very carefully into the economic basis of farming and discuss this matter with the banks. The banks are the key to this problem in this country now.
They are far the greatest landlords in this country, and I do not believe that any success can be achieved without their co-operation, but with their co-operation, which I am sure would be willingly given, a great start could be made with this problem.

I will not keep the House longer, except to express again my confident belief that the Government are working at this problem and will give us a scheme of land settlement before very long. We are going to spend day after day in this third year of the National Government on a Bill which is dealing with the unemployed, I agree, but is not dealing with unemployment. It is much more important to deal with unemployment than to deal with the unemployed. I hope that the Government will not forget that essential part of the task for which they were returned to power by this country.

8.25 p.m.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: I am a little puzzled by what was said by the hon. Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg) in regard to the scheme of migration. I understand that he is not opposed to that scheme provided that we first of all get men back on the land in this country and make farming pay in England. After that, we are to go forward by getting people who are trained on the land here, or rather their sons and daughters, to go into the migration schemes for the Dominions. I do not think that we could wait for such a process to take effect. It would take too long. We ought to take action now. There is not the slightest doubt that, unless we can get our people settled outside these shores, we shall never be able to cope with the unemployment problem of this country.

I would like to stress the vast importance of the British shipping industry to the country and to the Empire in connection with migration and trade. It is the most vital link. It is upon that link that the Empire has been built up, is dependent to-day and will be dependent in the future. You may develop the country and you may increase production; you may spend an enormous amount of time and energy in increasing production in any part of the Empire, but the whole of your trade and prosperity will ultimately depend upon those products being provided with a safe, cheap and certain means of transport across the seas. That
transport can only be provided by ships. Neither the air nor any other means of transport can ever take the place of ships. It is of vital importance to the Empire that such ships should be British or Imperial ships, and should be manned by British or Imperial crews.

It is of great importance, from the point of view of helping the unemployment situation in this country, to remember that there are 40,000 officers and men of the British Mercantile Marine out of work. An enormous amount of tonnage is laid up, and there is a great decrease in the volume of tonnage that we possess. The shipping industry is in an extremely serious condition. This is a question which demands the immediate attention of the Government, who should take some steps to overcome the position which exists at the present time. One of the lessons which we learned in the War was that never again should this country be so dependent upon the foreigner for its food and for the products of certain key industries as we found we were in 1914. It was unanimously agreed by the Imperial Conference that we should develop an inter-Imperial policy of trade and migration with the idea that we should become more and more dependent upon the resources of the Empire and less and less upon the foreigner. We started that policy at Ottawa. Schemes are now being put forward for the migration of our people in pursuance of that policy.

There is no difference in principle between being dependent upon the foreigner for our food and being dependent upon the foreigner for the transport of that food. They are equally wrong, and equally bad for this country and for the Empire. The sea-power of this country is absolutely essential, not merely in regard to the number of battleships, cruisers or destroyers that we have, but in regard to the number and volume of our mercantile marine. Those two sister sea services working in the closest operation should be able to assure to this country and to the Empire their economic life and security both in peace and in war. I stress the importance of numbers, because they are essential. During the Debate which took place in this House on the question of shipping a short time ago it was sug-
gested that numbers did not much matter, the turning over from the tramp steamer to the larger steamer which carried both passengers and cargo was not of importance, but I contend that it is of vital importance that such a change should not take place. We must have at our disposal numbers of merchant ships. Let it be remembered that in time of war, over and above the ships which are required to carry food, raw materials and manufactured articles, etc., from any part of the world to any other part of the world, it is necessary that our mercantile marine should be able to provide the transport for carrying troops from any part of the Empire to any other part.

During the late War, the losses in the mercantile marine were enormous, and, unless we have a very large volume of British shipping, it will be impossible for us to give security to our country and to the Empire in any future war. I make a great point of this, because in the late War I happened to be stationed in command of a cruiser in the North Sea during those terrible months of 1917 when it was a question whether the antisubmarine measures being taken would prevent the sinking of some 17 ships week by week. If it could not have been stopped in the spring of that year, this country would have had to sue for peace. I therefore stress the enormous importance of getting back again to that sea power upon which this Empire has been built, upon which it depends to-day and upon which it will depend for all time. It is not a matter merely as to whether shipowners make a profit, and it is not merely a national matter; it is so important that it is an Imperial matter. I would press upon the Government the necessity of having some Imperial body set up to deal not only with this matter of Imperial shipping in which the Dominions can do so much to help, but also with the enormous number of other Imperial matters which the Government have not time to study and to deal with.

The merchant shipping of practically every foreign country is to-day receiving a direct subsidy, or special freight rates on the railways, or special consideration in regard to harbour dues. By one artificial means or another, our shipping industry is being subjected to a totally unfair competition and in consequence we are losing our position as the carriers of
the world. It is the duty of the Government to deal with this position. I know that they are considering it, and that they are waiting for reports to be received from the shipping companies. I urge upon them the vital necessity that, with regard to this, the one great service upon which our existence depends, they should lose no time in taking such measures as are necessary to bring back to this country that sea power upon which the prosperity and security of the Empire must ultimately depend.

8.34 p.m.

Mr. KENNETH LINDSAY: I rise after very little preparation, chiefly because of the speech delivered by the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft), to which I listened with very great attention and of which I admired the spirit. As a very new Member in this House, I only wish he had been able to back up his arguments with more material support. This problem of migration is one of the most tangled of political problems. I do not quite know how to explain it, but I think it is very largely because, in a great many cases, people are asking somebody else to do something which they are not necessarily prepared to do themselves. When the hon. and gallant Member said that none of the gentlemen to whom he referred had any financial interest in the scheme, I almost wished that they had, because I believe that that is the only test in the long run One has to make up one's mind whether a scheme of this sort is to be carried on on what is in the long run a charity basis, or on an economic basis. I believe that the idea of artificial large-scale migration is a bankrupt idea. I say that with very great respect to the hon. and gallant Member, but not without a great deal of inquiry during the last few years and I think that the sooner we recognise that fact the sooner we shall get migration going. I am just as keen about doing so as the hon. and gallant Member, but I think that what we want is to debate this matter out.

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: The hon. Member says that large-scale migration is a bankrupt idea, but surely he has been connected with a settlement on a fairly large scale?

Mr. LINDSAY I can only speak for myself, but I never have. The hon. and gallant Member talked in large terms, and not only that, but he talked in terms of an organisation within the settlement which was pure Socialism. He talked in terms of large grants and entirely new colonies on virgin soil. I am very practical about this question, and I want to know precisely where that virgin soil is, in the necessary quantity and with the right conditions as to rainfall, markets, timber and so on, within the Empire. I want to be shown the exact places, carefully surveyed. To a certain extent we are talking in the air until we know place after place where these things can be found. No doubt the hon. and gallant Member knows these places, but all I can say is that I have not been able to find out, going on the map, and sometimes on foot, through different parts of the Empire, where these exact spots are.

There is another point which I think we ought to make absolutely clear to our minds in Debate, and that is that we ought never to relate unemployment to migration. In case any hon. Member looks at it from that angle, let me say that I think it is a wrong angle, and to look at the problem in that way would kill the migration scheme from the start. In the first place, you would get the wrong people. It is, however, very easy to turn down schemes. The hon. and gallant Member mentioned Mr. Micawber, but there is a sort of inverted Mr. Micawber, waiting to turn things down. It is very easy to get schemes put before experts and turned down; it is always possible to pick holes in such schemes; but I think we ought to look at the experience since the War and ask what are the main lessons to be learned from it.

I may be wrong, but I should say that the two schemes which have succeeded most are the 3,000 families scheme in Canada and the £10 rate. What is the £10 rate? The £10 rate is helping a man to help himself. The man does not put his hand right into his pocket, but he puts it half-way in, and the rest comes from sources about which in many cases, he does not know. All that he knows is that the wheels have been oiled and the movement started. Personally, I should like to see a £10 rate in the Empire to get the movement going. It is a fact
that, so far as the statistics show, these two schemes have actually succeeded in moving large numbers of people from this country to the Dominions.

What is the experience of artificial settlement? The experience of it so far is that it has failed. Group settlement, with about two exceptions which I will name, has failed. Why has it failed? I think it has failed because you cannot settle people artificially in large blocks on the land unless you have very carefully considered the markets, unless you have recruited them—or, to put it, perhaps, better, they have recruited themselves—from this country, and unless you have a very highly trained administration on the other side. The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth said that his scheme would have all these things, and it can be done on a small scale.

I happened to be connected with a scheme which I think has been more successful than any other—not from any action of mine, but before I had anything to do with it. It has been successful because it obeyed half-a-dozen of the first principles of settlement. One of those principles is, as was pointed out by the hon. and gallant Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg), subsistence settlement. The profits come afterwards; they are the jam, if you like; but subsistence comes first. In the second place, a wise man was running it. It was neither Socialism nor democracy; in fact, there was a good bit of autocracy about it. It was run by a man who knew more about the subject than the other people. Where are there in this country to-day half-a-dozen men who know the first thing about settlement from a practical point of view? They might be found in some parts of the Dominions, but not here.

Sir H. CROFT: May I say that there was actually on the Committee with which we have been working a gentleman who has settled thousands of people in Australia?

Mr. LINDSAY: There are people in this country, whom we all know, in voluntary societies, who have some experience of what is called recruiting, that is to say, getting the right people instead of the wrong canes, but generally speaking there is a shortage of trained
men for this work within the Empire, and certainly within this country. In the case, however, of the 3,000 farms in Canada, those farms were present; they were in existence. In some cases they were only half developed, and in some cases only very little developed, but these people lived side by side with other Canadians, and one of the chief assets in that settlement scheme was the fact that the neighbour helped. The neghbour came in and lent tools and so on; very often someone from the women's institute helped the women who had never learned to make bread, and so on; and gradually the scheme was built up; but it was organic.

I do not know whether I am making the point clear or not, but the point I want to make is that there is a difference between an organic growth in migration, whether by oiling the wheels or drafting people into existing settlements, and what I think is the wrong method of artificial settlement of large numbers of people on virgin territory. If that could be done, I personally should be in the strongest agreement with it, but I do not remember any example of its ever having been a success. I do not say it is a good argument to say that it has not been tried; I am all for the spirit of the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth; but I think we must have some thought on a question like this, because we are dealing with human beings. It is very different from investing money. Here you are investing the lives of human beings, and in modern days, when economic events in one country or in the world may suddenly seize hold of the prairies of Canada and for the time being practically reduce thousands of people to the condition of the dole, you have to be extremely careful what you are doing.

There is one point on which I disagree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Altrincham. My experience, for what it is worth, is that some of the finest settlers in the Dominions to-day have come from the Old Kent Road. I asked several times in Canada which was the best type of settler and invariably the reply came, "On the whole, we prefer a man who does not know too much about agriculture in the old country." So we need not be too nervous about the area in this country from which settlers come.

Sir E. GRIGG: The point that I was making was not really so much that the man from the country made the better settler but that he was more ready to go.

Mr. LINDSAY: I am not sure that that is true. Of the actual number of settlers who are ready to go many are coming from the bigger urban areas. If these criticisms are largely negatived, what about the future? I was very much impressed with what was said by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor), that an inquiry was going on into shipping and the Government had not quite made up their mind on that question, and that there was an inquiry going on into migration and the Government had not quite made up their mind on that question. There are great problems of markets and of the relation between the farmer who grows butter in this country and the farmer who grows butter in New Zealand. All these questions are waiting for answers, and, when hon. Members say that we need a plan, I am not sure that they are not right. The time is very rapidly approaching when we shall have to deal with that solid core of unemployment, that million, and, while we do not talk of that in terms of actual settlement, we have to have several attacks made on the Problem. We want a sort of organic handling of the movement, and we want some training in our educational system so that people will have some idea of what they are going to in the Dominions. Experience on that point is appalling. We want a much better British representation on the migration question overseas.

There was a time a few years ago when, if we had been ready, we could have settled large numbers of people. People are going to-day from Europe to Canada, and we are not ready. A new bulge is coming in the next few years in adolescence. A very fine experience is being gained in the North of England in the training of boys between 14 and 18. There is some suggestion from the Opposition Benches that these boys in some sense are being forced to go abroad, but there is no truth whatever in that as a general proposition. The boys who have gone out to the Dominions during the last 10 years have gone out for the most part under excellent schemes and, no doubt, a wealth of
experience is being gained on both sides, so that the inefficient organisations can be weeded out and the best concentrated and turned on to that movement.

These are probably the first things to be tackled, but the question raised by this Debate is something bigger. It is whether there is any sort of possibility of planning, with some form of chartered corporation backed by the banks with adequate finance, I do not think on the scale laid down but on a somewhat lower scale to start with. Can we know exactly where the areas are, and can we obey the principles which I think almost all Members in the House are coming to agree are the principles, generally speaking, for conducting training in agriculture which is not some hide-bound form of Socialism, nor undiluted private enterprise, which is quite impossible when you are dealing with people coming to new territories. What you want is an organisation in those territories which will lay down a framework within which a man can work out his own salvation, if you like, build his own house and grow his own crops, and to a certain extent there may be marketing arrangements provided co-operatively. Those questions can be solved later, but the main principles are that some organisation shall go into the pioneer territory ahead of the migrant and make it generally possible for him to earn a living off his own bat. That was not done in Australia. The scheme was a failure because every principle of migration was ignored, and that is one of the reasons why we have the miserable position in regard to that settlement. It is high time that this House agreed on the basic principles of migration and settlement. We should then hear much less about the negative side and about schemes which are too grandiose. We should come down to a concrete, practical, sensible scheme, free from party considerations, to which the great majority would agree.

8.53 p.m.

Dr. WILLIAM McLEAN: I should like to refer to the underlying principles of economic development which appear to govern this question. For the economic development of any territory three things are necessary. They can be expressed in the simple formula, men, money and markets. The question of markets seems to be the limiting factor. Production, to
be economic, must be related to the markets available. It has became evident that in any given territory the existence of open spaces and natural resources does not mean that it is necessarily economic to populate the open spaces and exploit the natural resources. For example, the great expansion of the wheat belt in Canada resulted in difficulties, which we all know, very largely owing to the fact of the difficulty of disposing of the crop. Again in Australian, and especially in Tasmanian development, the provision of transport facilities and power and other things in the country were carried out on a scale which sometimes had very little economic foundation. If we peruse the reports of the Australian Development and Migration Commission, we shall find the unhappy results which in many cases turned out there. Any encouragement to migration within the Empire, therefore, should be based upon the requirements of planned development. Only in this way can we extend our overseas market and ensure the prosperity of the settlers; a bankrupt community overseas is no market.

It might be useful to the House if I remind hon. Members of what the Secretary of State for the Colonies is doing with regard to the development of the Colonial Empire as a unit so as to obtain the maximum economic advantage. A survey of production and trade development is now being carried out, and it includes an examination of the possibilities of production of certain commodites, the extent of the markets assured for those commodities by preferences and by agreements, and also of the labour available in those Colonies. This basis of information is essential for the preparation of the Colony development plans which show the programme of communications, public services, public health, education and other matters which are necessary and which are rendered possible owing to the trade development. In this way a Colonial Empire development plan is gradually being built up. It is worthy of remark that it is on a very satisfactory basis of complementary trade to this country, that is, they supply us with raw materials, and we send to them manufactured articles in return. The planning of trade and other developments in the United Kingdom, in which the
Minister of Agriculture has given such a great lead, makes it easier to solve the problem of migration. We are gradually moving towards a planned development in this country upon which we can base agreements.

It would seem, therefore, that to complete the Imperial picture it is necessary to examine with the Dominions the possibilities of what we might term an Empire development plan. This means an examination of production, both agricultural and industrial, in the Dominions, and the coming to some mutual arrangement as to their development so as to provide the assured markets which the Dominions themselves would welcome, and upon which may be established any programme for the migration necessary to carry out such development. Practical experience and research tell us that this method of approach to the problem of Empire migration cannot be neglected in view of the economic conditions which exist to-day.

9 p.m.

Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: We are under a debt of gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Sir A. Shirley Benn) for giving the House an opportunity of discussing this question. Apparently hon. Members do not take a very vivid interest in the question, but it is within the power of the Government to make this a very real question for the Empire, and one of great living interest. I hope that they will very shortly take steps to provide for the future. Speakers have related the question of unemployment to the necessity of relieving the pressure of over-population in this country. It does not do to say that we wish to send people to the Dominions in order to relieve unemployment, but, undoubtedly, if we set the stream of migration flowing again, it will relieve the pressure of population in this country, and thereby contribute very greatly to the solution of the problem. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. K. Lindsay) told us at the beginning of his speech that community settlement on a large scale was bankrupt, but he seemed to be rather inconsistent because he ended up by commending community settlement but on a smaller scale than that recommended by the hon. Baronet the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft), provided the settlement
was directed by a man who knew his business. He said that in this country there were no such men, or very few. I would refer him, for instance, to Mr. Bavin, of the Young Men's Christian Association, who has settled thousands of young men and boys overseas, and to Commissioner Lamb and the magnificent organisation which he represents, for experience in settlement. I think I know what the hon. Gentleman appears to be about to say, that they have to deal only with individual institutions, that they have done well and are perfectly capable. I also refer to General Hornby, who has made a successful settlement in Alberta. When he visited this country last year he consulted many organisations and authorities who are interested in migration, and he is now in Canada preaching the doctrine of migration, and achieving great success.

Mr. K. LINDSAY: I do not want to cast an aspersion upon Commissioner Lamb or upon the other gentleman mentioned, but I wish to make the point that their life's work has been in the recruiting needs. I was talking rather of the person who actually administered settlement, and who had an intimate knowledge of agriculture and settlement.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: I realise that the hon. Gentleman did not lay stress on the people recruiting at this end, but I mention Mr. Bavin as a man who has actually settled many thousands of young men and boys in the Dominions. He has taken them over and carried out the settlement in co-operation with friends on the other side. He has ample experience. General Hornby has had the experience of a successful settler, and I would call attention to an extract from an excellent journal published in London called "Canada." Mr. Beatty, who is one of the greatest authorities on settlement in Canada, President of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and has been instrumental in settling thousands of men in connection with the Canadian Pacific Railway, speaking of General Hornby's scheme, said that General Hornby's proposals for immigration included some responsibility for immigrants being undertaken by the district from which they came. Part of his scheme is that cities and counties in this country would be responsible for schemes, and Mr. Beatty went on to say that these proposals were
worthy of great consideration. The proposals were criticised very freely, and we found the leading paper of Regina saying:
While there is quite an outcry against further immigration at this time, the situation is a little ridiculous when we contrast the crowded lands of Europe and our own vast unpeopled tracts.
The hon. Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg) said that the question that might be put by suggested settlers was: "Why do not you settle us here? Why send us out to work on the land and make butter in the Dominions?" The answer is that people settled on the land in this country will not be content with mere subsistence; they will expect more. Also, there are very large numbers to be settled and unless you settle a large number very little impression will be made on the problem. If you settle a large number here you bring them into competition with the farmers and agricultural workers already on the land in this country and thereby produce unemployment. You might give settlement on the one hand, but you would produce unemployment among the agricultural workers on the other hand.

It is much easier to produce subsistence settlements in the Dominions. For instance, there is the Pandaloo Settlement in Alberta, which was brought about in 1923 by the Scottish Aid Emigration Society. One hundred families were settled there on a subsistence basis. The settlement was organised by Father MacDonald, and those 100 families are practically all doing well on a subsistence basis. I think I have given some examples of the possibilities of community settlement. Nothing has been more distressing in the last 10 years than to see the stream of migration, which was flowing so hopefully in the early 'twenties, first of all under the Empire Settlement Act of 1922, gradually drying up and ceasing. Nothing is more necessary, in co-operation with the various parts of the Empire, than to set that stream flowing again. Nearly 50 years ago Sir Robert Giffen, who was head of the Statistical Department of the Board of Trade, laid down the principle that in prosperous times migration prospered and that in lean times migration dwindled, and that has been the case in recent times.

What hopes are there in the future so far as we can see? What signs are there
of revival in accord with the dictum which I have quoted? Look at Canada. We had with us last year Mr. Stevens, the Minister of Trade and Commerce in Canada, who said that Canada was sound. That statement is true. The number of unemployed in Canada is going down and trade is increasing in consequence of the Ottawa Agreements, one of the first great influences on an Empire scale of Empire co-operation. Trade between Canada and the Motherland is growing in consequence of the Ottawa Agreements, and it shows signs of growing still more. That means that we can see, not far off, the revival of prosperity in Canada, which will mean that the stream of migration will flow again to Canada.

Look at Australia. It is very unfortunate that the happenings in Victoria in regard to the settlers have given a set-back to migration to Australia, but we hope that that is a passing interlude and that it will be a lesson in future migration schemes to take proper precautions before settlements are attempted. Proper precautions were not taken in regard to the Victorian settlers and the promises made to them were not fulfilled. The first essential of any scheme of migration is to see that the basis is sound and that there are reliable possibilities for the people who migrate. The Australians have set us a good example in one respect. They found themselves in an almost desperate financial position, but they tightened their belts, introduced measures of the sternest economy and restored their credit. That fact is proved by the Australian Government being able to convert their loans on favourable terms, and they have had their reward. Not only have they restored their credit, but last year they obtained better prices for their wool, far better prices than they have had for several years. The result is that we see better times coming in Australia and the possibility of the stream of migration flowing a little more strongly so far as Australia is concerned.

Are we to sit still and wait for prosperity to arrive and not make plans for the future? We have reason to know that the Dominions Office is alive to the necessity and we hope that before long we shall hear good news from the Dominions Office. The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft)
and his committee have worked hard during the past year on the schemes that the hon. and gallant Member has put before us. If I might dot one or two of the hon. and gallant Member's i's, I do not think that he contemplates sending out a very large number of people straight away. He contemplates preparing the ground, suitable ground, which has possibilities, beginning on a small scale, gradually extending and not sending out an army of people at the start. We have plenty of people with enterprise and brains who, in co-operation with people in the Dominions, can run such a scheme. If we look at Canada and go to Nova Scotia we can find a successful community settlement of Danes there. If we go to Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta we can find successful community settlements of Czechs, Swedes, Norwegians and Germans. If those people can make successful community settlements, why should not Britons? There is no reason for bankruptcy of a community settlement.

May I read what Mr. Beatty has said:
Upon my return from Great Britain recently, I said that I was convinced that the time had arrived for Canada to embark on a definite moderate policy of immigration, particularly from Great Britain; that the sparseness of our population was still a drawback in view of our external and internal obligations, and that I did not think this country had anything to fear from a judiciously regulated policy of admission of those of our own race in particular.
He continued to say that there were 30,000,000 acres of land available for settlement in the prairie provinces, within a radius of 15 miles of the existing lines, and he ended by saying:
It is a heavy but glorious responsibility—to justify our heritage in the possession of a huge and geographically important area of the earth's surface; to make our contribution to the building of a great new northern nation—the keystone of the arch of the British Commonwealth of Nations.
I have read that passage to show that there are men in Canada who wish for a revival of immigration. The same desire is expressed from Northern Australia and Western Australia. They say, form your schemes, be responsible for the settlement, and we will work together. When we get these voices from the Dominions, ought we not to realise that the time has arrived for co-operation betwen us and them? More than 300 members of this House signed the request
drawn up by the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth to the Prime Minister to grant a day for the discussion of this question, which I repeat is and must remain the vital question for the British Empire. Amongst those 300 Members are a number of young men, full of vigour and brains, and I say to them, here is a task for you, in conjunction with the young men of the Dominions, to work out plans and weld the Empire more closely together by peopling with men and women of our own race the vast fertile spaces, still vacant, in the Commonwealth of British nations.

9.17 p.m.

Mr. LECKIE: I did not intend to intervene in this Debate, to which I have listened with great interest, but one or two points occur to me which I should like to place before the House very briefly. It is not often that I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft), but I agree wholeheartedly with the case he put before the House this afternoon as being a very practical and well thought outline of a scheme of Empire migration. I was glad indeed that the hon. and gallant Member emphasised the point that if migration had proceeded on pre-War lines during the last few years there would have been very little unemployment in this country to deal with at the present time. We should have had a much smaller population, and unemployment would have been largely absorbed in the ordinary way. There are a great number of people who do lip service to a proposal of this kind. They say, it is a good idea, but this is not the time; look at the unemployment which exists in the various Dominions and Colonies, it is almost as bad as it is in this country. No one suggests that we should launch out on large schemes of migration, but there are many experiments in group or community settlements which could be tried now, and it would be a good thing if the Government could be induced to find money so that some of these well thought out community settlements might be carried out. The hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville) mentioned the excellent community settlement in Canada. Most of them are pre-War settlements, and conditions are different at the moment.

Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: The Clandonald settlement was started in 1923.

Mr. LECKIE: I consider that migration on group lines is on a different basis from ordinary migration. The idea put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth was that there should be villages or small communities placed in various parts of the Colonies and Dominions, which would to a large extent be self supporting. Some of the settlers would grow corn and wheat, others vegetables and fruit, while others would run the stores, and so there would be a certain amount of self support for the village, and it would not be necessary, to a large extent, to find markets for the produce that would be forthcoming. May I also refer to the responsibilities of Australia and New Zealand, and in a less degree of Canada, for the position in which they find themselves. They have vast territories which are unoccupied, which call for population. I know that the Dominions say that some of these districts are uninhabitable, but I am certain that the people of Asia, who are so overcrowded, do not think so. Here we have a great problem. In Asia there is a tremendous surplus population, and they are looking with envious eyes to Australia and New Zealand as possible outlets for their population. We agree that the Dominions have a right to make up their minds that they are only going to have a white population in their territories, and, therefore, it is all the more necessary that they should meet this question fairly and squarely. If they are not going to have Asiatics they must co-operate with us in securing members of the British stock to populate their countries. I desire to support the Motion very heartedly in the hope that we shall be able to induce the Dominions and Colonies to co-operate with us in planning great schemes of migration, not for the immediate present but for the time when business and trade and commerce improve, so that we shall have ready well thought out plans and schemes of migration for the whole of the Empire.

9.24 p.m.

Mr. LYONS: I am sure that we are all grateful to the hon. Member for Park Division of Sheffield (Sir A. Shirley Benn) for putting down a Motion for a discussion of the important question of
Empire settlement. There can be no doubt that upon the proper incidence of British population depends the whole future and prosperity of the British Empire. I join at once with the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville) in deploring the flow back into this country for the last few years and a complete absence of any real settlement of British stock overseas. While I entirely support the programme adumbrated by the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) I ask hon. Members to look at one additional angle of what is a very vital programme. As one who has given some years and some consideration to this important topic of Empire settlement, I want to ask the Committee to look upon the question of Empire migration as one not entirely connected with unemployment. We do not look upon the population of the Empire merely as an opportunity for placing unemployed persons. We believe that Empire settlement is vital in the interests of the British Empire. It is as important a topic to persons who are in employment as it is to those who unfortunately happen to be for the time out of employment. Nothing is worse than to allow Empire settlement to be thought of as a problem exclusively linked up with unemployment. Much was done three or four years ago by the Overseas Settlement Department by establishing in various parts of the country what were termed county migration committees. I had the doubtful pleasure for some time of serving as a member of one of those committees. Their work was doomed to failure mainly because the headquarters of the committee was put in the local Employment Exchange. Once the thought becomes current that this is a matter connected entirely with unemployment and designed to eliminate unemployment, then the real spirit and the real vitality of this great movement of Empire settlement is killed for all time.

I wish to ask the Government whether they will consider a scheme which I do not put to them to-night for the first time, but which I believe to be essential for the increase of Empire settlement. That is to give some kind of commutation of unemployment benefit to every employed or unemployed insured
person who desires to settle in the Overseas Dominions. A few years ago my right hon. Friend who is now the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs was responsible for the inauguration of a scheme whereby an old age pension payable to a British citizen should remain payable to him if he went and settled in the British Empire outside this country. I believe that that scheme has never been altered, and is still in force. I would urge the Government to consider the introduction of some scheme whereby no insured man in this country, employed or unemployed, should be asked to go on the great adventure and sacrifice the rights which he and his family enjoy under the Unemployment Fund and the various social services to which he has so long contributed.

I ask—and it is not beyond the wit of man so to formulate a scheme—that there should be a right inherent in every insured person to take with him to any part of the British Empire a commuted sum equal to the benefit to which he is entitled under the schemes to which he has contributed. I do not suggest that that money should be paid to him in a lump sum in cash the night before his embarkation, but that an amount could be actuarially determined is open to no question. That this payment, making the man a capitalist as soon as he leaves these shores, would be a great advantage to his settlement is not open to doubt. I have not the slightest doubt that the Government of any one of our Dominions would be only too willing to add to that amount something from their own pockets to make a really substantial amount for the disposal of this settler when he arrives in a Dominion to take up fresh residence. The amount would be administered by that Government; there would be no waste in extravagant expenditure, and he would at once go to a country well equipped by being a capitalist to start the new adventure in a new land.

That is one scheme which might well be considered and pursued by the Government in the near future. Mr. Beatty was perfectly right when he said that Canada ought to welcome a new influx of British population. I had the pleasure of visiting Canada again this year, and I deplored again the complete lack of British immigrants to those shores. I
realised only too deeply that there is growing up in Canada to-day a race of people entirely unconnected with the United Kingdom. There are settlements from various parts of Continental Europe that have no connection at all with the British race. We realise the worth of the settlements that were made in the first instance by those who went to Canada from this country, and we believe that such settlements can be made by persons who go from here to-day.

One of my hon. Friends who spoke said that it was not possible in his judgment to find a number of persons responsible for settlement, or for formulating a scheme under which settlement should be made. I would dissent entirely from that statement. I believe that it is perfectly possible to find a board consisting of a number of persons who have had great experience in the settlement of migrants overseas, and who would select the right people, administer to their needs, and see that they went to the right places upon their arrival. The Victoria position is nothing short of a catastrophe. It never ought to have happened; it happened through bad management or a complete lack of management, and it has put mass migration back a long time, because it is a horrible example. I hope with all my heart that no such disaster will ever occur in future if it can be avoided.

The whole of the migration difficulties which now exist could be avoided if we could establish a permanent Economic Council, part of whose duty would be to consider from day to day the question of migration, both mass migration and individual settlement. The Three Thousand Families scheme, spoken of a little time ago by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. K. Lindsay), was notorious in Canada as the most successful scheme for family settlement that the British Empire has ever known. It was full of the community spirit: the settlement of whole villages and families together, with no spirit of isolation and with everything done for the settlers under the scheme to make them really at home together in a new country in which science has abolished the desolation of the wilderness. Why cannot the same principle that actuated the Three Thousand Families scheme be put into operation to-day? We are told both
here and in every Dominion—I heard this last summer in Canada from members of the Canadian Government—"This is not the time for migration; it is not appropriate. When we have the number of unemployed that we have, and when we are meeting as we are the full force of the economic blizzard, the time is not ripe to encourage migration." I dislike intensely the term "economic blizzard"; it is generally an excuse. British stock in a British Dominion is an asset and no liability.

We heard just now that Canada is about to start the construction of a new main arterial transcontinental road to convey motor traffic directly across the Dominion from Nova Scotia to Vancouver. That is work in which British concerns would be very much interested. It is work which would have been open to those going from this country if such a scheme had been in the hands of contractors able to employ British labour. It is not merely in the agricultural occupations that vacancies and opportunities occur for British settlement. Canada is entering on a new era, an industrial era. There is any amount of opportunity if we co-operate in the proper transplantation of people from this country to various parts of that great Dominion. One of my hon. Friends to-night said that a good deal could be done through the banks, which are the biggest land-lords. A central bank may shortly be founded in Canada. Banking facilities on a co-operative scale could adjust themselves to the needs of the community settlement schemes that were outlined by the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth. The more British stock goes into the Dominions the greater assets we give to our possessions there.

I hope that this question will not be delayed. Bearing in mind the time that must be taken before any scheme can be put into operation I hope that the Government will not only take, but that they are already taking, the necessary action, and are considering how best they can make these schemes practicable. A good deal has been said about voluntary organisations. I believe that the success of any migration scheme depends almost entirely upon private enterprise. The 3,000 families scheme, the great success of Canadian settlement, settlement
schemes of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, the Hudson Bay Company and the steamship companies in Canada, have been successful without any Government assistance as such, but with merely Government supervision by an expert technical department and an after-care centre and experimental branch. That is the kind of Government assistance that is wanted, though the work is done entirely by private enterprise.

Those propositions were colossal successes. In Manitoba and in Alberta I myself saw the work done by the Hudson Bay Settlement men, who were trained in England and Canada, were put into holdings, were financed and given implements and instruction. All those things were done by private enterprise. The Government intervention in Canada has been only the intervention of someone anxious to guide, advise, co-operate and to give assistance. It seems all to have finished. Why, I do not know. The more people you bring to a Dominion, the more consumers you put there, the more you increase the purchasing power in the Dominion, in which they are both producers and consumers. Such people are assets and consumers and they are never a liability at all. There is a lull in migration and I hope it is only to exist for a little time. Some one has said that there must be no more migration until the present leaks are stopped. The British Empire, perhaps better than any other community, is fitted to lead the world back to prosperity. When that leadership is taken up I hope we shall see that our proportion of British stock has gone into the Dominions, where British settlement has counted for so much.

It is no good simply deploring the fact that migration is at a standstill. There are in this country many voluntary societies which would willingly co-operate, and are co-operating, with the Government. These voluntary organisations are at all times at the disposal of the Government. The Overseas Settlement Board might well be reconstructed so as to be a real aid to further settlement overseas. I do not know how the finances stand under the Empire Settlement Act; I do not know what funds are available now to assist in overseas settlement, or what might have to be spent
from that fund in order to found the scheme that I have mentioned, to give to an insured person the right to have his benefit commuted if he settled overseas; but the money might well be found from the balances in hand from sums voted by this House in years gone by for Empire settlement. Something should be done and can be done. I hope the House will agree to the Motion, which invites the Government, in the midst of its many preoccupations, to bring about some kind of readjustment of the incidence of British population, on which the whole future of the Empire must depend.

9.42 p.m.

Mrs. WARD: The Bouse must be very grateful to the hon. Baronet who moved this Motion for the opportunity of discussing the question of migration. I am certain that Members of all parties must be troubled with the problem of the redistribution of the white populations. We cannot with equanimity sit down and be satisfied with the number of white people who at present are living under the British flag overseas. It has become evident that if we do not people our Empire, someone else will people it. It does seem to me that there are great difficulties in the way of a number of people going to the Dominions at the present moment, but when the time does come for men and women to migrate to our Dominions the Dominions will be anxious to choose those who are most agriculturally-minded, and who will therefore make better settlers. If we cannot do much in the way of migration to our Dominions at the moment, we can at least be prepared for the time when we can do more. It does not seem to me that we are doing anything to prepare for that time.

The hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville) said he did not believe that subsistence farming could be carried on in this country. I disagree with him. I believe that if you were to ask in this country for men and women willing to go on to the land for subsistence farming you would be inundated with requests. A landsman is not made in a few moments. Living on the land is a hard life, and if the Government and the country are waiting for the day when farming will be making big profits before they put people on the land, I believe they will wait until the crack of doom. There have
never been spectacular profits made out of the land, and I do not think that such profits will ever be made. Therefore people who go on the land have to love the life more than the living. They must be prepared to work hard, to work long hours, patience and endurance are the qualities necessary for a man or woman to make a good settler.

I appeal to the Government to do something about settlement on the land in this country. It has been stated to-night that we do not want to assist unemployment by migration. I quite agree. There is nothing the Dominions dislike more than the thought of taking from our country the people who are surplus, those who have been unemployed for a long time and have lost their skill. Here is an opportunity to put our people on the land now, to give them a chance, if they do not go abroad themselves, of raising families who will be agriculturally-minded and ready to migrate when the time arrives. I appeal to the Government to do all they can in this matter. I know it is said that there is no use in putting people on the land now because those who are already on the land are not making a living. But in this country to-day there are, for instance, many miners who will never again be able to find work in the mining industry because it is a contracting industry. There is an enormous surplus of unemployed miners—I think something like 200,000. Then we have many unemployed farm workers. Many of these men, I feel sure, would be anxious for an opportunity to go on the land and they would certainly make good landsmen.

This is the moment at which we should be preparing for the future. There is no use in merely hoping that when the Dominions are ready to take our people in great numbers we shall be ready to send them there. We shall not be ready if we do not prepare now. Let us therefor try out a scheme of subsistence farming. Let us appeal to the men and women who are anxious to go on the land before we say that there is no one willing to work on the land for the love of the land. The people who can make a success in agriculture here, are the people who will be successful settlers in our Dominions. That is why I ask the Government to do all they can to encourage schemes of land settlement here and to encourage our people to become agriculturally-minded,
in order that we may be able to people the Empire with British stock who will be able to make good and make a living.

9.46 p.m.

Captain GUEST: In the last seven or eight years I have attended a good many Debates on this subject and it has always seemed to me that in such Debates private Members show every readiness to contribute suggestions and thoughts, although very often they are without the facilities available to a Government Department. I think the present Government and those who were in the last Conservative administration will admit that there has been no lack of good feeling and of a desire to help, from all quarters of the House, on this extraordinarily difficult and important subject. Although we have only been allowed a few hours for this Debate there has been shown on the part of private Members in every part of the House the fullest desire to help the Government if there is any way of giving help. I am sorry that the Government did not see fit to find time and to meet the request put forward by such a large number of Members in connection with this matter. I see their difficulty. I know the relative importance which is attached to these various subjects, but I urge the Government not to regard this as an unimportant subject. The fact that there are not many Members present now is not an indication that the 312 Members who signed the petition to which I have referred did not mean business. They do mean it in the sincerest possible way and I hope that this Debate which has been of high quality will satisfy the Leader of the House that more time for this subject would be welcomed, and that he will make arrangements through the usual channels for its further consideration.

I know the work which has been done by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) in connection with this question. There is a team of Members each one of whom could produce complete and detailed suggestions on this matter, but by agreement among those who are interested, we asked my hon. and gallant Friend to carry the burden of the Debate on this occasion while we supported him by our presence and by some rather more general remarks. The House and the Government owe a great debt of
gratitude to my hon. and gallant Friend for the unstinted and voluntary effort which he and those associated with him have devoted to this subject for the past two years. I know how that work is appreciated in some quarters, but I should like it to be known and appreciated also by the rank and file of all parties in the House. It has been said and I think the point was mentioned particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg), that Empire settlement could not be entirely instigated and managed by a Government. I agree, but I do not go to the extent that my hon. Friend has gone on that point. I think the problem is so large that, without at least 76 per cent. of the assistance which only a Government can give, any scheme of a private individual or private corporation will never come to fruition. There has to be a combination of private enterprise and suggestion with support by the Government of the day.

I shall not waste the time of the House in drawing attention to previous Debates beyond referring to the sad fact that as Debate follows Debate the record of the migration situation grows gradually worse. I looked up the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Debate of some years ago and it would seem that at one time as many as 500,000 people had gone to Canada and that they were accompanied by £500,000,000 worth of capital. That is a point which we should not omit to consider. Whether or not one can say that unemployment is due to the falling off in migration is a difficult question. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth seems inclined to believe that if the migration figures had kept up, unemployment would not have supervened to the extent that we have experienced. I do not know, but I feel that the falling-off in the figures of migration has certainly augmented the figure of unemployment.

I pass from that point to another which is closely connected with it and upon which I think we may run astray. The Dominions Secretary said in the last Debate that he did not wish the Dominions to get the idea that we were taking advantage of migration proposals to plant our unemployed upon them, and other speakers have expressed that view. Obviously we all agree with that, when
it is put in that way, but I am not prepared to admit that of the great number of unemployed in this country any more than a very small percentage are unemployable. I think the vast majority of unemployed families, taking them as families, are unemployed through no fault of their own but owing to the stage of depression through which the world is passing. I do not think it would be hard for us to build up again the morale of the unfortunate people who are in the unemployed category to-day. Therefore, it is not necessarily so much of an insult to suggest to our Dominions fellow citizens that, out of the unlucky people who have suffered distress here owing to world depression, we can provide them with stock as fine as England has ever sent abroad in the past.

I hope the Government will not overdo that point. In fact, this is a subject in connection with which it is dangerous to overdo any point. It is fraught with difficulties, and in dealing with such a question it is a mistake to lay down the law. Although it is said that the present period of depression is the worst time in which to tackle this problem, I think daylight is showing in two ways. There are two fundamental policies which the Government have adopted and which seem to open up a vista of possibilities of improving the chances of migration. There is first, the new economic policy of the Government adopted in 1931. I was not a Tariff Reformer in any shape or form until the crisis came. I have learned, and I hope many of us also are learning, that conditions are so curious that the old shibboleths did not work any longer, and therefore the new economic policy introduced in 1931 received very nearly 80 per cent. of the support of the electors of this country, or, if that is too high, of a very large majority of them at any rate.

That economic policy is now beginning to bear fruit, and it is the exact fruit that the emigrant is looking for, and not only the emigrant in this country, but the man in Australia and Canada who previously was frightened that he would lose his job if any further labour competition were to arrive at his door. The settlement of prices or their gradual stabilisation and the stabilisation of markets has not only put new heart into the producer but has given every working
man a greater feeling of stability so far as his wages are concerned. He is a producer, but at the same time he is a spender, and the whole lot of them put together are consumers. If you get a condition of improved and stabilised markets and if you get a happier condition in the wage-earner's home, you get more money in circulation, and I may add that going off the Gold Standard has increased the amount of money in circulation, in value, by about one-third, but even without increasing the amount of currency in circulation, if it is verily in circulation, if it can be counted upon, and if contractors can make contracts with the certainty of their being fulfilled, you have a so much happier mental atmosphere in trade that people say, "I am not so frightened now. My home is secure, but it was not secure 18 months ago, and now I feel more contented, and I am prepared to deal with emigration schemes from a very different point of view from that of two years ago." Therefore, I submit that the economic policy of the Government, as developed in the last two years, is in every conceivable way favourable to the reconsideration by the Government of emigration schemes.

The other pillar of the Government's policy is the extraordinary efforts that they have made to deal with the unemployment problem. I think most people will admit that they have done extremely well. The re-absorption appears to be of a permanent nature, and I think they deserve congratulations upon it. I want to draw the attention of the Government to one of the most remarkable sentences uttered by a statesman and a Minister in the last few years. It is a short sentence uttered by the Lord President of the Council, and I think it is only in the spirit of this little sentence of his that we can possibly tackle a problem of the size and the importance of that which we are now discussing. He said—without any reference to the context, because it applies just the same to whatever piece of legislation it may be—
You have to find remedies for situations with which no one is familiar—there are no precedents.
If we accept that—and it was the statement not only of a statesman but of a philosopher—we have something to support us in being brave. Governments as a rule are not brave. They are afraid of their skins, or they are afraid of by—
elections or of something else, and they will not admit that this problem is very likely the most important problem that has ever faced the Empire.

But I want to make room for the hon. Gentleman who is to follow me, and I will end on this note. The fact that there are no precedents leads me to make this perhaps rather alarming remark. I believe—and there are others outside the House who believe, and I am not sure there are not Members inside also who believe—that we are on the verge of bursting our boundaries. Civilisations are hemmed in in territories not big enough to contain them. Look around. Japan must go somewhere. She is now turning her attention towards countries the names of which I cannot even pronounce, but I know they are somewhere on the Eastern shores of Siberia. Apply the same thought to civilised lands nearer home, and it seems to me quite obvious that an Empire which contains undeveloped land where no attempt is being made to use it or to fill it is, both from a strategic, defensive point of view and from a dog-in-the-manger point of view, running a grave risk of having that land taken from it. I do not know whether that is stretching the bow too strongly, but I think it ought to be borne in mind when the Ottawa Agreements are revised next June.

In conclusion, I think we must try to draw the attention of our fellow-Members to this way of looking at the subject. This subject of emigration is not one which can be handled alone by the Secretary of State for the Dominions or his able representative here to-night. It is a subject which concerns at least four Departments of the Government. It concerns the Ministry of Agriculture, who have to advise and help as to what are the products that can be best produced; it concerns the Board of Trade, to help with the conditions of sale; and it concerns the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to study the methods and means by which the transfers of money from one form of national effort to another can be made. I think that although we have only had a very little time in which to talk about this subject to-night, we on the Research Committee, which has been presided over by my hon. and gallant Friend below me, are glad to have had an opportunity, however small it may have been, and we
will certainly return to the charge at the first possible opportunity.

10.2 p.m.

Mr. LUNN: I have listened to every word in this Debate, and I have heard many lofty sentiments, but I have not heard one practical suggestion made by any hon. Member which is going to start migration immediately to any Dominion. Moreover, I do not remember when we had a Debate in which Members took so little interest. There has not been in the House one in 20 Members of this House since the Debate commenced, and all those who have been here have been those who, like myself, are believers in migration to the Dominions. When there are opportunities for people to migrate there and, as the Secretary of State for the Dominions has said, when there is a guarantee of a livelihood for those who go, I am favourable to it. But, after all, this Debate has exhausted itself completely on this question, as it was bound to do, because it is not an immediate, practical question at this moment.

Let me say to the hon. Member for the Park Division (Sir A. Shirley Benn) that I knew when he came out of the ballot that he has such an interest in Empire questions and is such an Empire lover that he was bound to raise again this question, which he raised only a very short time ago, and I am sorry he is not as well as he would like to be to have done more justice to the subject on this occasion. The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) has dropped into a role to-night in which I admire the generosity of the right hon. and gallant Member for Drake (Captain Guest) in placing him. The scheme that he has put forward to-night I have had in documents years and years ago, published by the right hon. and gallant Member for Drake. He has made speeches from the other side of the House on this scheme, and whenever he has done so nothing more has been heard of it. It has gone to cold storage, and I believe that after to-night this scheme is just as likely to go into the cellar and not be heard of until the next Debate.

Sir H. CROFT: The hon. Member can be quite easy about that.

Mr. LUNN: We saw on the Order Paper that there were 312 Members who
asked for this Debate, and the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville) tells us what a large number of enthusiastic young men there are in this House. But they are not going to settle in the Dominions, and they are not very much interested in the subject. The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth has given us this scheme again and has told us that they had 75 witnesses before an important committee which considered the matter, but I have not heard any suggestion from him that has not been made more than once by his right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Drake. The idea is that the scheme should be backed by a chartered company, but this committee is not going to find the money. They say so. The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth says that no member of the committee is going to put any money in the chartered company.

Sir H. CROFT: What I intended to say was that I think I am right in saying that not a single member of this large committee has any idea of making any money out of the scheme. I never suggested that if such a scheme went forward they would not be ready to risk their money in it in subscribing for the bonds and debentures.

Mr. LUNN: I do not suppose anybody expects to make money out of the scheme if it comes into operation, but the hon. Baronet said quite clearly that none of the committee are going to join the company. They want other people's money for this scheme. After they have got the money and formed the company, all their ideas for those who come under the scheme are to be on Socialist lines. What I have always understood as Socialism is to apply to the community when it gets into some part of the Dominions that has not been mentioned. We should like to know where it is to be. Another idea of the promoters is to get rid of our unemployed. If there is one thing that has damaged migration in the years when it was going fairly well, it was the idea of the Ministry of Labour being associated with it. I agree with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Drake that our unemployed are not unemployables, but that they are men and women who can be made suitable for employment if it were provided for them. While we agree with that,
however, we have to convince the Dominions. That is an important factor. All the time they have felt that we have been anxious to send our unemployed people to them.

I will not agree, and I have never in any Debate or Committee agreed that our unemployed are unfit to go overseas. Ninety per cent. of them would be suitable to go overseas if there were an opportunity. The scheme before us to-night is for 250,000 people to be settled somewhere in some part of the Empire. I have never heard yet of any person who takes a serious interest in and has worked in connection with migration who gives his support to a scheme of that sort. It has been said by everybody and by every committee that has dealt with it that it is a practical impossibility to ship our people overseas in such massed movements as is contemplated, and I do not know of anyone who would give support to it being put into operation. If we have got the money, why not settle our people at home? The hon. Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg), who opened his speech by supporting his hon. Friend, made a very strong argument against it and pointed out many ways by which we could settle our people at home. He also criticised the scheme by saying that while permanent unemployment is almost stabilised here and is likely to become worse, the same thing is happening in the Dominions.

When hon. Members talk about this scheme being carried out by private enterprise, I am astonished. The most successful scheme that has ever been put into operation was the Three Thousand Families scheme. If anyone knows about its origin, it is myself, and I would say that that scheme had no connection with private enterprise at all. It was formulated by the Government and discussed between the Labour Government of 1924 and the Canadian Government. It was agreed upon by the two Governments and was carried out by the Federal Government of Canada which was responsible. It had no connection with private enterprise and is regarded as the most successful scheme that has been put into operation up-to-date. I am satisfied that if migration is to be carried on in future successfully, it can only be done by co-operation between Governments so that there shall be a responsibility not only in finding the money but for the after-
care and the welfare of those who go to the Dominions. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. K. Lindsay) made a statement that the Opposition said that boys had been forced to go. I wish to repudiate that idea. I have never heard any Member of the Opposition say so, and I certainly have always been opposed to any suggestion that either boys, men or women should be forced to go. It must be voluntary migration, and I should resent as much as anybody any idea of the Ministry of Labour or any other Government Department shoving off our people in that way.

But the hon. Member did reply very effectively to the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth and having been connected for a long time with the Over-sea Settlement Committee's work he knows the facts of the situation. I am not opposing this Motion, for one reason because I want the committees that are in existence or which may be called into existence to consider migration and co-operation between this country and the Dominions, and I hope that whenever the opportunity for migration does come advantage will be taken of it. But even if schemes are prepared, can anyone say when they are likely to be put into operation? I do not think anyone here can predict the day or the year in which they can be started. Can anyone say when the Dominions will be willing and able to absorb settlers? The Prime Minister of Western Australia, which is the most likely state in the Empire to consider migration from this country, says the time is not suitable for it to-day, and I believe there are hon. Members in this House who could explain the position there very fully. Further, as regards Australia, the plight of the returned settlers will not help the situation. They were deluded, they were not given the facts of the situation. Pictures were drawn, glorifying their lot. They were told they would earn not less than £400 a year, whereas many of them lost their all, and the recompense given to them by the Victorian Government is, I believe, regarded by every member of the House, as totally inadequate. We ought to know from the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, who has met a deputation, what the Government intend to do in that matter. Something has to be done, and we should like to
know what, because what happened in that case is going to be prejudicial to any future scheme.

Migration from this country to New Zealand has been out of the question for many years. Then, take the position in Canada. The hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville) quoted a speech by Mr. Stevens in which he emphasised the serious position in Canada. We know that camps are being established; that there are 15,000 young men in camps in various parts of the country and that they are provided with food, clothing and shelter and five dollars a month; and that whilst unemployment is going down nothing has been done in Canada to relieve the lot of their own unemployed. Those are his own words.

Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: That is quite true, and I quoted that speech, but I think my hon. Friend agrees that the general tenor of that speech was that Canada had turned the corner and had expectations of becoming very much better off.

Mr. LUNN: And so, I hope, shall we in this country. It is most important to this country and every other country that the people should become better off, and secure an opportunity of working for their livelihood, but we must look at the facts. Look at the position of Empire settlement from another point of view. Less than a year ago the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs answered a question in this House as to the balance of emigration and immigration between the United Kingdom and the Dominions. His statement was that for the year ended 30th September, 1932, there was an inward balance of emigration from the Dominions to the United Kingdom of 26,034, made up as follows: Canada and Newfoundland 17,644, Australia 3,847, New Zealand 1,641, British South Africa 2,902. A condition such as that, which is continuing, although not perhaps to the same extent, does not make this a practical Debate.

I say, with the Secretary of State for the Dominions, what he has said many times across this Table, that if there is an opportunity for a livelihood for our people we ought to have schemes in operation. We have schemes in abund-
ance which could be put into operation to assist people to go overseas. I want to see favourable agreements, and they might be revised and considered at the present moment. If migration is to be successful, it must be facilitated and must be State-controlled. Assisted migration has, up to now, been for settlement upon the land, but in future it will be necessary to give more general consideration than has been given in the past, because most of the settlers do not remain on the land when they get to a Dominion. However carefully selected, and however carefully trained they happen to be, they do not remain on the land.

There is another matter. We are dealing in this Debate with human beings, and we have to think differently of them than if we were dealing with machines. There is not the necessity for human labour in the Dominions that there has been, because there has been a development of machinery, even in agricultural countries like those. I carried about with me for a long time pictures from Canadian newspapers showing reapers being used in the Canadian wheatfields that were doing practically everything that had to be done, and without human labour. If that is to be the position in the future, we have to take it into consideration. Our people are not going to accept the hardships and the low standard of life which used to be the rule, and I am not going to be the one to ask them to undergo those hardships.

If there was one thing in this Debate that I did not like, it was the idea of the hon. Member for Windsor that though our people will not accept a subsistence basis here it is all right when they are sent overseas. I do not think that that is the sort of argument that we ought to put up with regard to migration.

Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: May I explain? The hon. Member has misunderstood my point, which was that it was very difficult to accept a subsistence basis here, but that it would be quite possible to begin upon a subsistence basis in the Dominions and then to raise the standard.

Mr. LUNN: That is hardly an argument that I should use on a public platform in this country in order to tempt people to go overseas. Every
individual has a right to expect a better standard of life in the Dominions than he has here. There is plenty of room, and smaller populations than in this country. People want the best, but they will never have the best from this Government, who have done nothing towards helping people over the non-productive years of their lives. Now the people are grown men and women, and we are losing their productive power and their purchasing power. If we are to consider this matter seriously, we must bear in mind that the Dominions do not want any migrants. Until there is some possibility of satisfactory settlement, I am opposed to spending public money upon the matter. I have no objection to inquiring into the circumstances, seeing what the position is, and keeping in touch with them, but, when we do anything in this matter, let us give the facts of the situation.

This is not going to cure unemployment, and I am pleased to say, on behalf of the Oversea Settlement Committee, of which I am a member, though not now the chairman, that they have never accepted that view. No report of theirs has ever accepted it, and we hope we shall never be associated with those misguided enthusiasts who want to ship our people overseas without any regard to the consequences to them if they go. By all means let us co-operate with the Dominions and make arrangements with them, but we have an Empire Settlement Act, which has a good time to run yet, and which in my view is quite satisfactory. I think we are bound to keep the Dominion Governments interested in this matter, as well as the Government on this side. There might be discussion as to how the 50/50 principle is applied, because there may be something in that connection which is not just what it ought to be. Let us consider it and see what can be done, but let us retain it for any future migration that is to take place.

At the moment there are only two forms of migration that can act. The one is nomination, and the other is the migration of those who are prepared to take the risk and go on their own account. The nomination system is a good one, and one to be encouraged. It is satisfactory because it means that those people who are already settled and
doing well are nominating their relatives and friends from this country, which guarantees that they will be looked after and cared for and provided for when they go overseas. There are many questions that will have to be discussed, such as the question whether young children should go or not. I hope we shall never return to the ideas that existed before 1924, when it was agreed by both the Canadian Government and our own Government that children should not go out to be little slaves, as many were reported to be, and should not suffer from the lack of care that was shown to exist at that time.

Group settlement has taken a prominent part in the Debate to-night, and I think that sufficient has been said to show that group settlement has not met with much success up to the present, nor does there appear to be a possibility of success for it in the future. I think it could be shown that very few people who went out originally in any of the groups are now associated with those groups, wherever they happen to be. I suggest that, when we are considering the question of settling our people on the land, Great Britain is a part of the Empire, or should be considered as a part of the Empire. If we want to settle people on the land, would it not be much better, instead of shipping them overseas and borrowing money, as the hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Sir A. Shirley Benn) said, to do it, or losing millions of capital, to settle them in this country? If we are to provide capital for settlement, let us do it at home. We have plenty of land in this country on which to settle hundreds of thousands of people——

Sir H. CROFT: Where?

Mr. LUNN: You have not far to go. If you travel about you will see an abundance of vacant land all over the country. There is a market at hand in the necessities of the people in this country who would purchase the produce and, if there are 250,000 people to be settled, it would be better to settle them in this country and give them a guarantee of a livelihood as the result of their employment such as it is understood is to be given them if they go overseas. I would spend the money at home, because I am satisfied that we could spend those millions to advantage here.
I believe it costs up to £2,000 to settle a family in the Dominions, or has done up to now. If we had that to spend, I would rather spend it here and keep our people at home. I feel that, as we have the idle land, the idle men and the idle money in our own country, we had better deal with the matter, and it would have been well if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been here to tell us how far it would have been possible to take advantage of the money that there is and to borrow for the settling of our people on the land at home producing food in this country.

I do not object to the Motion. I think it is a matter which should ever be kept in front of us. I see no immediate possibility of anything being done, yet I hope there will be in the days to come such a change, not only in this country but in every part of the Empire, that there shall be nothing to prevent those who wish going to any part of the Empire. I want to see first of all satisfaction and happiness in my own country. I think the Government should be doing more than it is doing or has done in the past and I hope they will take a lesson from the Debate to do something at home in order to meet the sentiment of many Members with regard to the settlement of our people in every part of the Empire.

10.34 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): The House must be quite convinced by now that Providence is on the side of the hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Sir A. Shirley Benn) and the cause of which he is such a faithful champion, because, whenever he desires the House to discuss this problem of migration, he has only to go to the ballot box and almost automatically he draws the lucky card and we have an interesting and helpful Debate such as we have had this evening. I agree with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Drake (Captain Guest) that perhaps the most remarkable feature of these Debates is the series of constructive speeches that are always delivered on these occasions. The Government have been made fully aware that this type of Motion has the support of an unusually large number of Members and, beyond that, there is very
wide interest in the question outside in the country. The Government share the view of hon. Members who have spoken this evening as to the intrinsic importance of the question of migration. I am only anxious to let the House know the general attitude of the Government towards the problem, and also what the Government are doing about it. We all admit that migration, for a few years past, has been practically at a standstill, and we are all agreed as to the reasons.

The Dominions have been hit by the world depression, as has every other country. They have a serious unemployment problem of their own, and we could not expect them in those circumstances to open their gates wide for additional emigrants to flow in. Nevertheless, no one will deny that, when conditions become more normal, the vast territories of Australia and Canada, for instance, will find that they are inadequately populated. More than that, I think that people will agree that those vast open spaces, as they are always called, cannot be filled by the normal, natural increase of the existing population as they should be filled. There has to be an increase in the population in those territories over and above the natural increase of the population already there. For many reasons, some of which have been mentioned in the Debate to-night, it is important that that additional increase of population should be composed largely of British people. The movement of migration of Britishers from this country to the Dominions has to start again, and this Government has to have a migration policy.

That is the general attitude of the Government towards the matter. There has been a lull for two or three years, but it has not been the view of the Government that during this period of lull we should do nothing at all about it, and that we should simply sit still and twiddle our thumbs, and wait for things to start again. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) said that be sometimes thought that the Government were too much occupied with immediate problems that they did not consider the future, and that they were not planning for a period some way ahead. I should be prepared to dispute that on many subjects, and it is certainly not true about their attitude towards the problem of migration. My
right hon. Friend the Secretary of State considered that this period of lull was an opportunity for some hard thinking and some hard planning for the future, and he considered that this was a time which we should use for considering and examining our experience in the past, for trying to learn the lessons of the last 10 years of migration and migration policy. He believed that this was a chance of examining that experience, good and bad, and trying to work out the lessons to be learnt and of planning our policy of migration, both in principles and in machinery, for the future.

Therefore, something like 12 months ago he set up an informal inter-Departmental committee to examine the whole question, and to advise him upon it. I have had the privilege of sitting upon that committee. Ever since we were appointed we have been going ahead with our work as quickly as we could. On Friday we hold our jubilee meeting, our 50th meeting. I do not know whether my hon. and gallant Friend's committee can beat that record. I only mention it as an indication of the very great care and the very great deliberation which we are trying to put into our examination of the question. We have not reached the end of our work, but we are approaching the end. I should say that we have accomplished about 80 per cent. of our task, and we shall certainly endeavour to put our report into the hands of the Secretary of State at the earliest possible moment, some weeks from now. That is the first stage, so to speak, the preliminary canter over the whole course, by an inter-Departmental committee.

My right hon. Friend intends to go on with the further stages as rapidly and as energetically as possible. In the first place, he will examine the report for himself, but he is anxious not to make up his mind about policy simply on the basis of a Departmental report. It is his intention to communicate the report to the various interested bodies and individuals who are concerned with this problem and have had experience of it, such as representatives of the voluntary societies, in order that they may make their observations and comments on the conclusions arrived at in the report, and he will arrive at his own tentative conclusions in the light of those comments of outside people as well as in the light of whatever
conclusions may be put into the Departmental committee's report.

Beyond that, my right hon. Friend is anxious, as the Motion suggests, to "get into touch with the Governments of the Dominions" as quickly as he can. I should like to make it clear that it is not our intention to make up our minds about policy and to have our minds fixed before we approach the various Dominion authorities. We are only working out this Report in order to arrive at definite but tentative conclusions, because this policy must be one of co-operation with the Dominions. We have no intention of handing to them a cut-and-dried scheme. It will be a scheme evolved in the way I have indicated, after very careful thought, but one which it will be open to them to amend, which can be discussed between them and us and which we hope finally, in some form or other, will be concluded as an agreed policy between the Dominions Governments and our own Government. That is the general programme of work which my right hon. Friend has in mind, and we shall pursue it as energetically as we can, and certainly with great precision.

The House will not expect me, therefore, to anticipate a Report which is not yet concluded, and which my right hon. Friend has not had the chance of seeing and considering. This Debate, like other Debates on this problem, has been marked by a series of constructive suggestions, differing one from another, and by many comments on this aspect and that aspect of the problem, the different categories of migrants going out, group settlement, settlement by nomination and so on, but this is not the time to answer the points that have been raised. I cannot anticipate a Report which has not been completed, but let me make one or two comments on the question generally. I agree whole-heartedly with what has been said by many hon. Members as regards the relation of this policy of migration to unemployment. It would be extremely unfortunate if we regarded migration simply as one means of tackling our unemployment problem. It would be fatal to any migration scheme if the impression got abroad in the Dominions that all we were concerned about was, if I may use the phrase, to dump some of our unemployed in the Dominions. That is not the attitude any Government of this country has ever adopted during
the whole history of our migration policy. Migration will only be successful when the Dominions are convinced that they are going to benefit from it, just as we are going to benefit from it. It will only be successful when the Dominions are as willing to welcome migrants as migrants are willing to go to the Dominions.

There is another point which is fundamental—the question of markets. It is no good sending large numbers of people to the Dominions with a kind of vague hope that they will find something to do. Migration must be carefully thought out, and there must be a reasonable prospect that migrants settling in the Dominions will not only be able to produce something but will also be able to sell to market what they produce. The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth presented to the House a very ambitious and interesting scheme. Like the Government, he has been planning for the future. He has established a committee which has gone carefully into the whole question, and to-night he has presented the House with the results of that examination by a number of eminent and experienced men. This is not the moment to make comments on that scheme. He has only given us a brief sketch of it, and we must wait until we see the scheme in greater detail. But he touched on the question of markets, and said that the great Corporation which he envisages would arrange for the marketing of the produce of the settlers.

Let me give a simple illustration. Suppose his corporation was in existence to-day—I know that he does not contemplate a sudden commencement of migration and settlement—and that this corporation had to face the problem of marketing the produce of the migrant. The corporation would come to the Minister of Agriculture in this country. We know what the situation is here. We know that for reasons of policy, into which I will not go now, we are asking Dominion agricultural producers to restrict their supplies of certain kinds of agricultural commodities, and it would be quite unfair for us even to ask Dominion Governments, at a moment when they are being invited to ask their existing population to restrict supplies, to accept new migrants to produce exactly the same things which their existing producers are
being asked to restrict. I know perfectly well that my hon. and gallant Friend did not suggest that that was possible at this moment, and I only use it as an illustration of that marketing problem. That is why the Government went to Ottawa before talking about migration and settling down to work out migration plans: because at Ottawa we endeavoured to do something about this problem of markets. We endeavoured to increase the market, or to make provision for the gradual and progressive increase of the market, for Dominion goods in this country, and by as much as Ottawa proves successful in that way, by so much shall we help towards starting again a policy of migration to the Dominions.

Of course, it is not only migration that is going to gain if we can increase trade between the Dominions and this country, but shipping is also affected. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) spoke about shipping. The Government have been considering that whole question very carefully. Shipping would gain enormously if we could improve and increase inter-Imperial trade, because the great bulk of trade carried within the Empire is carried in British ships. I believe that 90 per cent. of that trade is carried in what are called British bottoms. Therefore, it is not only migration, but shipping—which is also mentioned in this Motion—that will benefit by trade treaties within the Empire, promoting trade within inter-Imperial markets. That problem of markets is, therefore, fundamental to this whole problem of migration, unless it is possible to establish here and there in the Empire the kind of self-supporting communities that have been mentioned in the course of this Debate. That, admittedly, would be an exception.

In conclusion, I should like to say a few words about that question of community or group settlements. It was extremely interesting to hear that conception of self-supporting communities advocated by the hon. Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg). He pointed across to my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. K. Lindsay), and said that he had been associated with a certain colony which is worked on those lines. It is true up to a point. I am not quite certain how far Eldorado is self-supporting and how far it is dependent on an
export trade—how far, even, it is dependent on this business of a market. But even if we admit that Eldorado is self-supporting, in how many places in the Empire are you going to find those conditions repeated? You have to have a piece of country which has a certain kind of pleasant climate all the year round, and which is capable of producing a certain variety of goods——

Sir E. GRIGG: I was speaking of settlement on those lines principally in this country, and not abroad.

Mr. MacDONALD: I accept that, but I am not sure that that is an argument for a migration policy.

Sir E. GRIGG: I did not use it as such.

Mr. MacDONALD: I am quite sure that my hon. Friend did not, but there is a certain amount of confusion with other people. A great many people who are interested in migration link it up with a policy of settlement on the land in this country. We have to recognise that, if you pursue a policy of land settlement in this country, you are by so much reducing the possible market for Dominion agricultural produce in this country, and by so much reducing the possibility of a large flow of migration to the Dominions. That is fundamental, and you have to get it clear. As regards self-supporting communities, there are very few places in the Dominions where you could establish that type of community.

On the question of community settlement generally I would remind the House that in past years there has been a steady flow of migration from this country to the Dominions and that scores of thousands of people have gone out year after year. In fact when you examine those years when migration was steady and large you find that only an infinitesimal proportion were going to settle in group settlements or communities. The vast majority of migrants went as individual families or individual men or individual single women or individual juveniles, and it is my personal view that, just as migration in the past has been largely migration and settlement by infiltration, so if we are to contemplate a large flow of migration in the future we have also to recognise that that settlement by infiltration is to be
responsible for far larger numbers than would be possible under a scheme of settlement by communities.

These are problems in which we are all intensely interested, and I have spoken principally this evening in order to indicate what the Government are doing about it, and to indicate, I hope, that they have been planning, and that they are working as swiftly as possible to the point when we can enter into discussions with the Dominion Government. Because we are all agreed in our objective and are all working in the same spirit, we should very much like to accept the Motion, if it can be read in the light of what I have said. The Motion says that we should get into touch with the Dominion Governments now, but I have tried to explain that we are now engaged and have been engaged for a long time in doing the essential preliminary work before getting into touch with the Dominion Governments. We could accept the Motion on the understanding that we be allowed to complete that preliminary work first and then get into touch with the Dominion Governments, and I am sure we shall then have a satisfactory conclusion to what has been an intensely interesting and important Debate.

Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: Would it not be wise to let the Dominions get into touch with the Committees that have been referred to?

Mr. MacDONALD: All the Dominions enjoy self-government and it is not for us to make more than suggestions, but as a matter of fact I have no doubt that in their departments they are considering this matter. We have already learned that there is a good deal of talk and interest as to the possibility of recommencing immigration in the principal Dominions.

Sir H. CROFT: May we take it that the Committee referred to is pressing on and that a large amount of work has been covered, and that we shall have some statement from the Government before many months are over?

Mr. MacDONALD: We are pressing on with the work and meeting twice a week. A great deal of the Report is already written, but we have not completed the work, and it is impossible for me to say when there can be any announcement, but as soon as we can
present our report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State he will give that matter very careful consideration.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House is of opinion that the time has now come when His Majesty's Government should get in touch with the Governments of the Dominions with a view to putting forward a scheme for the voluntary redistribution of the white peoples of the Empire and the stimulation of shipping and trade under the flag.

ORDER OF THE DAY.

ADOPTION OF CHILDREN (WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION) BILL.

Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

TEXTILE TRADES (JAPANESE COMPETITION).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

11.1 p.m.

Mr. REMER: I make no apology for raising an issue which has been raised on previous occasions and which relates to the textile industries of this country and particularly the cotton and silk industries which have been so much affected by Japanese competition. It was only on Tuesday of last week that the Prime Minister spoke in Leeds at what was, I believe, the opening of a national campaign and he said it was necessary for the cotton industry to show a certain "aliveness." It is a coincidence that at the very time the right hon. Gentleman was expressing that opinion there was a certain "aliveness" of the cotton industry in Manchester where some 3,000 operatives and manufacturers were expressing their opinion of the Government's policy. Since then, the President of the Board of Trade has visited Manchester and it would seem from the speech which he made to the Manchester Chamber of Commerce that he received evidence of the "aliveness" of the cotton
industry during his stay in that city. He told us on that occasion that on the question of Japanese competition the Government might have to act. An answer given yesterday by the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department was rather important. After long delay the hon. and gallant Gentleman gave us the names of the Japanese delegates but I am not going to attempt what he attempted yesterday namely to pronounce them. Though we were not satisfied that the Government's policy was right we hoped that something was going to be done and done quickly. When we left the House, however, we read the evening papers which contained a report about this matter. There was a report in the "Evening Standard" and a rather fuller report of a similar kind in the "Manchester Daily Dispatch." If I may quote the "Evening Standard" report it is as follows:
To-day a representative of the 'Evening Standard' had a conversation with Mr. Gentara Okada? the leader of the Japanese textile delegation in this country. He drew Mr. Okada's attention to remarks made yesterday by Mr. T. B. Barlow, the leader of the British delegates, on the delay in resuming negotiations. Mr. Okada replied that the authority for which they bad been waiting from the Japanese Government and the interests concerned had now arrived. 'Then,' said our representative, 'negotiations can now be resumed.' 'No,' Mr. Okada answered, 'We have to wait for our instructions. 'But,' our representative insisted, you came here without sufficient powers, you sent for them and now you say you have got them.' 'Yes,' agreed Mr. Okada, 'we are now authorised plenipotentiaries but we must wait further instructions from headquarters as to how to proceed. When we have them, we can fix the preliminaries.'
I felt a great deal of disappointment, as did everybody in Lancashire and Cheshire, on reading that interview, which was given not only to the paper from which I have read, but to others, and I propose therefore to put to my hon. and gallant Friend a number of interrogatories. First, will he state why, in negotiations on previous Trade Agreements, the Government have said, "This is a matter for the Government," and have ignored frequently the representations of industries deeply interested, while in the case of the textile industries the Government have taken no part at all and have held themselves aloof from all negotiations? The second question is supplementary to that: Will my hon. and gallant Friend undertake that if an
agreement is made between the Japanese and British industrialists and any legislation is necessary, he will rush it through this House with the greatest possible speed, or, if it can be enforced by Orders in Council, it will be dealt with promptly? The third question is this: Were any statements made to the President of the Board of Trade by those conducting negotiations with the Japanese on behalf of the textile industries as to the disadvantage in those negotiations of the most-favoured-nation Clause in the Treaties which we have in existence with Japan?
May I ask, fourthly, why it is that the silk industry, which was solemnly promised protection on the Floor of this House, in both the passages of the last Finance Bill through the House—and then in the last Budget Speech a solemn promise was made—is left out of the negotiations altogether? I also ask, arising out of that, if the hon. and gallant Member is aware that the problem of Japanese competition in silk only affects the home markets of this country, and that the complaint is not so much as to the volume that is coming here as to the changed character of the goods which are coming from Japan. The imports at present are of quite a different character from those which came in a few years ago. Further, on the question of the silk duties, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman state whether he is aware that Sir William Clare Lees, who is, as he knows, one of the delegates of the textile industry, has made a public declaration that the silk problem has no bearing on the cotton and artificial silk discussions which are going on between the industrialists of Japan and Great Britain?
A further question is whether he is aware that there have been many complaints by several chambers of commerce in cotton towns that the Manchester Chamber of Commerce seeks to speak for the cotton industry of Lancashire and Cheshire, and that very few of the directors of that body have ever had any connection whatever with the cotton industry of this country? Is he also aware that that body contains a very large element of merchants in this country who are directly interested in Japanese competition itself?
I would also like to ask three questions which are of rather more import-
ance than the previous questions. Is the President of the Board of Trade prepared to place a time limit on the negotiations at present going on? If not, why is he prepared to put such a time limit on the negotiations with the French Government, and why is he not prepared to give such a time limit to the Japanese Government? The next question I desire to ask is, is it not obvious to him and to any sensible business man in this country that Mr. Okada is playing for time and that he knows that the longer negotiations are delayed the longer the most-favoured-nation clause will remain in force, the longer dumping will continue and the later will be the date at which the British Government will be able to act? To that particular question I desire him to-night to give me a most specific answer. A further question is, is he aware that quite recently the Japanese traders were dumping motor cars into South Africa with British names and that the South African Government acted promptly and quickly? I ask him, if the South African Government can act in a matter like that, why cannot the British Government act quickly? Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that practically every country in Europe at the present time is expressing grave uneasiness about Japanese competition with reference to the rapid increase of dumping; that some Governments have acted, and that the effect of such Governments acting has been, and will be, that these surplus goods that are not allowed to go into these European countries are being thrown on to this market? I believe that this is one of the gravest issues that our industrial life has had to face. It must be faced quickly and promptly by this Government and not dealt with in the shilly-shally fashion of the last 12 months. It must be dealt with by firm and prompt action and by not delaying one moment further in abrogating the most-favoured-nation clause in the treaties. It is only by that means that we can bring Mr. Okada to his senses.

11.13 p.m.

Major PROCTER: I am sure that all of us in Lancashire were delighted when the President of the Board of Trade visited that densely populated area. It holds one-tenth of the population of this country, and its very existence as a
prosperous county and as a contributor to the resources of the Empire is seriously threatened by methods which tend to destroy everything which trade unions and social reformers have tried to set up during the last 200 years. I am glad that the President of the Board of Trade at last has been to this county and has seen for himself conditions there. We have been trying for the last two years to impress on him the seriousness of the situation—a situation that brooks no delay. For two years we have had the application of the doctor's mandate in Lancashire. First we were told to apply Coueism—"every day we are getting better and better." Now we are told that we shall get a re-birth of the cotton industry by using twilight sleep and talk.
I venture to remark that the whole of these negotiations are nothing less than a surrender of the Lancashire markets to our competitors. The negotiations now proceeding are not concerning the neutral markets; we are going to have competition there anyway; but for the first time a British Government has permitted a foreign Power to arrogate to itself a position in the British Empire which this country does not have therein. Therefore, while the Japanese are applying to headquarters, I ask that we shall apply something to the hindquarters of those delegates, and that we absolutely refuse to permit them to stretch out these negotiations, seeing that time runs in the interests of Japan.
The Indian Government have made representations to our negotiators and to this country regarding the Indian market. They have asked us to show that we are serious in our claim to a share of the Indian market by purchasing greater supplies of Indian cotton, and thus to defeat the moral claim which the Japanese have to a share of the Indian market, because they purchase over a million bales of Indian cotton. Lancashire people are prepared to co-operate in this reciprocal, this Empire trade between India and this country, but the position is that the industry is so strangled by the banks, so threatened by the Japanese, that it has not the money to change over its machinery for the use of this cotton. I ask the President of the Board of Trade to consider the possibility of granting a bounty to our manufacturers to enable
them to make increased purchases. Will the Government help them—because the banks will not—if they make a change-over in their machinery? If the Government will help by granting a bounty, Lancashire can increase her purchases of Indian cotton by at least 50,000 bales a year until eventually she will be taking 1,500,000 bales of Indian cotton, and that will keep out Japan from having any claim on those markets, which she has done nothing to build up and which she does nothing to maintain. After all, the Empire is our Empire, and I would ask, When are we going to be a first-class Power again? When are we going to get rid of this fear complex which we see actuating the Government at the present time, and say to Japan, or any of the other Eastern Powers that are threatening us with a rice standard of life for our workers, "We are going to use this Empire for the good of the people of the Empire, and for them alone."

11.19 p.m.

Mr. LYONS: I rise only to put before the President of the Board of Trade the fact that this plea for some reasonable protection against this attack upon our workers' standards is not made by Lancashire and Manchester cotton people alone. This unfair competition by a foreign eastern nation is striking at the very heart of our industries right through the country. Speaking on behalf of Leicester, with its diversity of industrial interests, I desire to represent to the President of the Board of Trade that we regard this matter as a very grave menace which we ask the Government to help us to check. Only this morning in Leicester I was shown example after example of goods made in Japan which have come into this country at a price far below the cost of production here, having regard to our standards, which we want to maintain for the workers in our own industries. The small tariff which is put on by this country is absolutely powerless to stop the entry of these goods, which are made under standards which Japan may like but which we never want to see in our industries.
I want to say a word or two about the silk trade and the artificial silk trade, which were referred to by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer). I have the honour to represent a city
which is concerned very largely in the manufacture of goods made of artificial silk. A promise was given to the industry across the Floor of the House that anomalies that existed would be removed by the Import Duties Advisory Committee. We had an unanswerable case for the reapplication of the Silk Duties. A duty was put on, but anomalies existed, and we were promised that there would be a remedy at once in regard to the anomalies which were unfair to the trade. The trade waited during something like nine or 10 months' discussion, week after week, between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Import Duties Advisory Committee. It is not for me to say what took place even if I knew, at those discussions, but every possible endeavour was made by the trade to put the Advisory Committee in possession of all the facts so that those anomalies could be cured. We were all staggered when we saw, some time in September, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his wisdom, had thought fit to ask the Committee to suspend all further consideration. I had hoped that if that had been a judicial body, as we expected, it would have said to the Government, "We will not have any interference with the discussion." The discussion was suspended. In Leicester, we have a tremendous influx of foreign goods, made under conditions which, Heaven forbid, we should ever see in Leicester, and which are coming into unfair competition with our industry.
Yet it is said that negotiations are proceeding. I know that many tasks await the Government, and that a lot of work has been done for national safety and reconstruction, but I must raise my voice for the Lancashire cotton industry and for the city I represent, which are faced with this great menace. I implore the Government not to be satisfied with consideration and discussion but to realise that this is a real danger to our industrialists and workers, who need protection against what we think are the standards of sweated labour.

11.24 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I made a statement yesterday in answer to a Private Notice Question in which I outlined briefly what took place on the occasion of the visit of the President of the
Board of Trade to Lancashire. Then I proceeded to state that the Japanese delegation now in this country had received authority to proceed to formal negotiations. The position is very well known. The delegation had been in the country for sometime, but was not authorised to conclude a binding agreement. Very useful discussions certainly took place to clear the ground, and a good deal of detail work has been carried out, but without that formal authority from Japan, of course, no binding arrangement could be arrived at. I stated yesterday that within the last 24 hours the Japanese Ambassador had informed His Majesty's Government, under instructions from the Japanese Government, that the representatives—whose names I will not repeat at this late hour—had been duly authorised by the Japanese industries concerned to enter into formal negotiations. I shall not be able to answer all the questions which have been put to-night, partly for the reason that I do not think that, at this stage of the negotiations, it would be advisable; but one I can answer, and that is the question as to the authority of the Japanese delegation.
There has been no suggestion, in the communication received from the Japanese Government, of any further obstacle in the way of commencing formal negotiations, and the Lancashire Committee are proceeding on the assumption that the way is now clear. The Committee is holding a meeting in Manchester on Friday to give further consideration to their plans for a meeting with the Japanese delegation at a very early date. I may go further, and say that I feel sure the House will appreciate that the preparation of the agenda, which is in the hands of the British Committee, is a matter of importance, and, if it takes them a few days, it is right that they should have the necessary time for that important work. Anyone who has had experience of industrial negotiations will realise the importance of such preliminaries, and the House will do well to place their trust in the skill, ability and knowledge of the representatives who have been appointed, to give them every possible support, and to leave them to judge as to the action to be taken in connection with these negotiations in the
best interests of our cotton and rayon industries. Reference has been made to statements in the Press suggesting that there was some doubt as to the authority of the Japanese representatives.

Mr. REMER: It was stated that they had received no instructions.

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: There have been statements in other sections of the Press where the interview with the same gentleman was reported on different lines. I think the House must rest content with the official announcement that there is nothing in the official statement communicated to His Majesty's Government which does not indicate that the coast is entirely clear for the commencement of formal negotiations, and our negotiators are proceeding on that assumption. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) asked why did the Government in this case stand aloof? They are standing clear at this stage, while rendering all the assistance possible, but the President of the Board of Trade has made it plain that in the event, which I hope and believe will not take place, of the negotiations not reaching a satisfactory conclusion, the Government will come in and act.
But the essential difference between the negotiations on the question of Japanese competition and negotiations for Trade Agreements, to which the hon. Member has referred, is that in the negotiations for Trade Agreements we were regulating trade exchanges as between two countries—Denmark and ourselves for example—whereas in this case we are dealing with regulation of a wide range of commodities all over the world, and it is obvious that, in the first place at any rate, those whose work it has been to carry on the industry, and who have more detailed knowledge of its ramifications, should be allowed to conduct the negotiations with their opposite numbers and see if they can reach a satisfactory agreement as to sharing the markets. I hope that at this early stage in the negotiations nothing will be said which will weaken the hands of the British representatives who have this great task before them, and should have the confidence of the country as they have the confidence of the Government.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine minutes after Eleven o'clock.